Popular science teacher John Freshwater has the support of many of his students and their parents but has been canned by the Mount Vernon, Ohio school board for “branding” students on the forearms with a cross. At least that is the story as reported by the on-line news service Breitbart.Com (Report: Ohio teacher burned cross on kids' arms).
In fact, the image on at least one student’s arm was produced by a science demonstration of a high-frequency generator similar to devices used in medical offices for a number of non-invasive therapies. During application it produces a slight tingling and warm sensation and causes the blood vessels in the skin to dilate producing a reddening of the surface that may last a day or so. The claim of one student is that the image lasted “3 or 4 weeks.” In fact, it was the complaint of that one student that brought the school board and its Superintendent, Stephen Short , down on Mr. Freshwater. But this occurred after years of efforts by the school district to get the popular and well-credentialed teacher to heel to demands that he cease any mention of God or Creation in his classroom. A particularly troubling problem for the Superintendent was Mr. Freshwater’s insubordinate habit of placing his personal Bible on his desk during class. What might students think? What evil might such overt displays provoke in the minds of the innocent and impressionable children?
According to several accounts Mr. Freshwater has been at loggerheads with the administration for some time over issues pertaining to the First Amendment and has prevailed because he knows his rights and asserts them appropriately. Furthermore, “Freshwater has drawn consistent praise for his strong rapport with students, broad knowledge of his subject matter and engaging teaching style.”
It seems that the complaint about the demonstration with the high-frequency generator was made to order for the administration that has sought Freshwater’s dismissal for some time. One student complained about “branding with a cross” out of how many? Slight reddening of the skin hardly amounts to “branding.” I’d be interested to know how many tattoos and/or piercings this poor child has endured. It lasted “3 or 4 weeks” you say? Well, if my child had been “branded” as they have alleged, I assure you I would be able to state, without any ambiguity, the precise duration of the injury down to hours and minutes.
I trust the Alliance Defense Fund will be called to Mr. Freshwater’s defense and I’ll be sending them another generous donation. No word, as yet, about the ACLU taking this opportunity to defend our Bill of Rights.
Related links:
Students support teacher by taking Bibles to school
Student Backs Teacher In Fight To Keep Bible On Desk
Ohio board votes to ax teacher accused of branding
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Teacher Allegedly "Brands" Student With a Cross
Cut Medical Costs by Reducing Frivolous Expenses
In advocating a government health care system, some people fail to realize that such a system would never function in the utopian manner they envision.
The Rapid City Journal opinion page today provides a good example of why it would be so grossly inefficient and costly, and from an unlikely source.
The Opinion Page reprints an op/ed from the Mitchell Daily Republic on a suggestion by a Brown County jail nurse to start charging inmates a small fee for the medical services they receive while in custody, in order to cut back on frivolous medical requests.
They're already doing this in Davison County where medical and other services come out of the prisoner's account. The result?
Jail officials in Davison County say frivolous demands usually drop when they understand they are helping to pay all or some of the costs from their own account.
Good ole human nature. Provide access to something that's "free" and some people--too many people--are going to use it frivolously.
I saw it in the military health care system; some people would waste an hour or two of their (and the medical staff's) time going to the base hospital to see a doctor and get free (taxpayer-funded) cold medicine, when they could have walked over to the BX and got it themselves for $10 in 15 minutes.
I also saw the National Health Service overused and abused when I lived in England for three years--on an even more massive scale than the military abuse. It's part of why, along with bureaucratic inefficiency and budgets, Canada and England see such outrageous waiting lists in their medical system.
Our current system is far from perfect, but going to a single-payer socialized health care system is a huge step in the wrong direction. We would do far better to remove much of the government regulation of the health care industry, make it easier to get health insurance across state lines and insurance portability.
And a big key in bringing sanity back to our system is getting the consumer more involved in their health care decisions--including controlling costs. Socialized medicine removes that part of the equation completely.
The Religion of Liberty in America
American Minute from William J. Federer
The U.S. Constitution went into effect JUNE 21, 1788, when New Hampshire became the 9th state to ratified it.
The 55 writers of the U.S. Constitution consisted of: 26 Episcopalians, 11 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 2 Quakers and 1 Deist - Dr. Franklin, who called for prayer during the Constitutional Convention, June 28, 1787: "I therefore beg leave to move - that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning."
The Journal of the U.S. House of Representatives, March 27, 1854, recorded the unanimous vote of the 33rd Congress to print Congressman James Meacham's report, which stated: "At the adoption of the Constitution, we believe every State - certainly 10 of the 13 - provided as regularly for the support of the Church as for the support of the Government...Down to the Revolution, every colony did sustain religion in some form. It was deemed peculiarly proper that the religion of liberty should be upheld by a free people."
Congressman Meacham concluded: "Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle."
Stan Adelstein: Candidates in Low Places
Pat Powers at the South Dakota War College tells of a disturbing story that happened recently when West River Republicans opened their campaign office.
Despite the fact that Elli Schwiesow is running (against "Republican" Stan Adelstein and Democrat Tom Katus) for Dist. 32 Senate as an Independent, she is a life-long Republican who has served as a party officer in various state and local Republican positions. She also has not abandoned a single Republican principle in running on the Independent ticket.
So when the office was opened and many people came to celebrate, Elli (in her usual nice and sweet way) came to celebrate with her Republican friends by bringing some cookies. Despite her nice gesture, things didn't stay nice for long.
From the War College:
Despite showing up in congratulations and fellowship for the occasion, I’m told that in front of God and everyone, she was rudely escorted from the premesis by none other than the office’s landlord himself, Stan Adelstein.
I understand that some hard-core Republican Party members who are dedicated to the party apparatus might be a little uncomfortable around Elli, since she's not running for office with an "R" after her name. But she still represents the same values, ideals and goals that are in the South Dakota Republican Party platform.
Even Republicans totally dedicated to their party machine should have at least been able to be cordial with this person who has worked so hard within their party for so many years, and still stands with them on core values.
Apparently that was too much to ask of Stan Adelstein.
As it was to back his party's support of Referred Law 6 in his party's Resolution 14 when he gave $15,000 to defeat the measure.
As was supporting his party's nominee in 2006 when he instead supported his party's opposition (Tom Katus) by campaigning with Katus and lending financial support.
As was supporting his party's candidates in general when he gave $65,000 to support 2006 Democrat candidates in opposition to his own party.
Given Adelstein's history, who is the better friend of Republicans and Republican values: Adelstein or Schwiesow?
Drive energy policy by markets, not politics
BY STAR PARKER
FOUNDER & PRESIDENT
COALITION ON URBAN RENEWAL & EDUCATION
Energy is too important to be left to businessmen and markets, right? We need people who we really can trust to get things under control.
Like politicians.
I'm looking at Carpe Diem, the blog of Dr Mark J. Perry, an economics professor at the University of Michigan. He compares prices of gasoline from 1919 to today against price changes of a first class postage stamp.
At four dollars a gallon, today's gasoline price is sixteen times higher than its price in 1919, 25.5 cents. Over the same period, first class postage went from 2 cents to 42 cents, a 21-fold increase.
And postage prices never went down. Only up.
From 1970 to 1980 there was about a 10-fold increase in oil prices. However, by the mid-1980's prices had dropped by two-thirds and remained relatively unchanged for the next 15 years. Now prices are up by six-fold since 2001.
History, particularly near-term history, is not difficult to access. Search newspaper and magazine articles of the late '70s. The headlines were about the "energy crisis." The world was supposedly running out of oil. We were at the alleged beck and call of Arab oil producers who stood at any moment to use the "oil weapon" against us.
Oil companies were being attacked, as they are now, for the amount of money they were making. When prices sharply dropped in the mid-1980s, these same firms had to cut back, lay off folks, and oil towns like Houston went into depression.
Politicians who want to punish firms with a "windfall profits" tax when prices go up don't propose "loss subsidies" when prices go down.
Our real crises occur when we believe those who challenge what makes this country work -- people, markets, and freedom.
Back to Perry's blog. He shows that with the 10-fold increase in oil prices in the '70s, our energy consumption patterns changed dramatically. Today we consume half the energy to produce $1 of output than we did in 1970. We're now twice as energy efficient as we were.
Yes, markets work when we let them.
Think the guys who drill in 10,000 feet of water offshore looking for oil and gas earn too much?
According to a BusinessWeek survey, median compensation for the CEOs of the 12 largest oil firms in 2007 was $15.4 million. The CEO of the largest, ExxonMobil, earned $21.7 million. Top earner was the CEO of Occidental Petroleum at $33.6 million.
All chump change when we look at the Celebrity 100 list published by Forbes Magazine.
Over the last year, for example, Oprah Winfrey earned $275 million, rapper 50 Cent $150 million, Steven Spielberg $130 million, and Beyonce Knowles $80 million.
With oil prices more than doubling in the last year, we are going to get a market response both with supplies and with how much we consume if we keep politicians at bay.
The "energy independence" goal is pure political baloney. As renowned energy economist and MIT professor emeritus Morris Adelman writes, "It does not matter how much oil is produced domestically and how much is imported." It's a global market and new supplies from any source will depress prices.
Although we import two-thirds of our oil, it comes from well over twenty countries. And despite conventional wisdom, our two largest suppliers are Canada and Mexico.
Appreciate that environmentalism belongs to the Hollywood elite who make their millions and then contribute to Democrats who tell us we shouldn't invest in carbon-based fuels.
Climate change is politics, not science. As environmental scientist S. Fred Singer recently wrote in the New York Sun, 30 percent of climate scientists surveyed were "skeptical" of claims about global warming caused by human activity. "More than 31,000 scientists" have signed a petition questioning the UN's science on all this and opposing the recent "cap-and-trade" legislation in Congress.
Tens of millions of working folks need cheap fuel for their homes, their cars and their trucks.
Yes, drill offshore, drill in Alaska, mine oil shale, and build nuclear plants. Leave all options open.
But let free markets and businesspeople drive these decisions. Not politicians.
Star Parker is president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal & Education and author of the new book White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay.
Prior to her involvement in social activism, Star Parker was a single welfare mother in Los Angeles, California. After receiving Christ, Star returned to college, received a BS degree in marketing and launched an urban Christian magazine. The 1992 Los Angeles riots destroyed her business, yet served as a springboard for her focus on faith and market-based alternatives to empower the lives of the poor.
UN Conference on AIDS Legitimizes Dangerous Behavior
By Aaron Leichman
Christian Post Reporter
Fri, Jun. 20 2008 07:39 PM ET
Conservative and pro-family groups expressed their shock and disappointment over efforts to legitimize aberrant sexual behavior during a recent high-level U.N. conference on AIDS and HIV.
Thomas Jacobson, Focus on the Family Action's representative to the United Nations, said that high-level officials of the international organization tried to push an agenda that would grant special status to sex workers, homosexuals and people living with HIV/AIDS.
“This was the first meeting where homosexuality, prostitution and injection drug use was promoted as acceptable behaviors that should be protected," he told CitizenLink.com, referring to the U.N. General Assembly's high-level meeting last week to review progress made in implementing the 2001 Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS and the 2006 Political Declaration on HIV/AIDS.
During the June 10-11 session, members of the U.N. panel discussion reportedly said that such groups should be considered “sexual minorities” and be free from the social stigma and laws against sodomy and prostitution that exist in many countries.
“[M]any countries have criminalized behaviors that push people underground and make them afraid to come forward to receive proper prevention and treatment,” lamented Opening Plenary Speaker Ratri Suryadarma of Coordination of Action Research on AIDS and Mobility Asia (CARAM Asia) in Malaysia.
“Decriminalize behaviors associated with risk of HIV that are targeted at specific groups,” she urged the United Nations, referring to “drug users, sex workers, gay men” and other vulnerable groups.
“HIV is a virus, not a moral issue,” one NGO representative said, according to the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute.
Alternative or new approaches over faith-based programs could reduce the spread of HIV, members of the panel reportedly said.
Piero Tozzi, executive vice president at the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, however, argued against the assertion.
“Rather than legitimizing the behavior that leads to HIV/AIDS, there should be efforts meant at curtailing it," he told CitizenLink.com.
"The notion that this is going to help the addicts and benefit society is false,” he added.
According to figures released on the eve of last week’s high-level meeting, there is a decline in global AIDS deaths and infections. An estimated 32.2 million people worldwide were living with HIV in December 2007 compared with 39.5 million people in 2006. Also, the annual rate of new infections seemed to have declined over the last decade. There were 2.5 million new infections in 2007 down from 3.2 million infections in 1998.
Last week’s meeting hosted 8 presidents and more than 90 prime ministers, foreign ministers and health ministers.
Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Friday, June 20, 2008
U.S. House Candidate Chris Lien a Solid South Dakotan
The Rapid City Journal has an article today on Republican U.S. House candidate Chris Lien from Rapid City.
The article is primarily about some of the things Lien has seen and heard from people as he's traveled South Dakota recently, and about his upcoming trip to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska.
It also brings out an important difference between Lien and his opponent, Democratic incumbent Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin.
The 2004 election which saw the defeat of Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle at the hands of John Thune. One of the factors which contributed to Daschle's defeat was that people saw him as not connected to South Dakota anymore.
Daschle had been gone from South Dakota for many years, except for his famous summer drives across the state. Then word got out that Daschle drove a high-priced Jaguar. Word also got out about his $3 million dollar mansion in Washington. And for the third strike, people also found out that for a tax incentive Daschle was claiming to be a D.C. resident.
A D.C. resident isn't a South Dakota resident. Can a District of Columbia resident represent the interests of the residents of South Dakota? It seems South Dakotans didn't think so.
Consider Stephanie Herseth Sandlin's background. She was born and raised here in South Dakota. But she moved away after school and went to college at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. After graduating from college, she worked primarily in Washington.
Lien, on the other hand, has spent most of his time close to home here in South Dakota. He's worked as a leader in the family business, Pete Lien and Sons, here in Rapid City and other area companies. He's served on the Ellsworth Task Force, the Rapid City Chamber of Commerce, the South Dakota Chamber of Commerce and even on the Worker’s Compensation Advisory Council. He knows what life is like in South Dakota.
As Lien put it in the Journal article
"My family is here and my future is here," Lien said. "If I'm elected and I make it to Washington, D.C., which I will do, I promise I will never forget that."
Will that make a difference to voters this November?
Are Oil Profits Obscene?
I don't enjoy paying $4.00 a gallon for gas any more than the next guy. But I also don't enjoy hear a bunch of Marxists and pseudo-Marxists bellyache about the free market.
The market does a far better and far smarter job of controlling prices than the government has ever done with it's nationalization schemes and price controls. In fact, government interference has a lot to do with the current cost issues, since government has strangled the oil industry's ability to produce new product and refine that product for sale. We haven't built a new refinery in over 30 years, and our refining capacity is about maxed out.
We hear lots of complaining about "obscene oil profits," and the oil companies do make a hefty profit. But then, they sell a hefty amount of product. Common sense says if you sell a lot of something, you're going to make a lot of profit, all things being equal.
But are these profits as "obscene" and out of kilter as the liberals would have us believe?
Karl Rove has a piece at the Wall Street Journal today which provides some much-needed perspective on "Big Oil" profits.
While the oil industry makes about 8.3 cents per dollar profit...
- Electronics make 14.5 cents per dollar.
- Computer equipment makers take in 13.7 cents per dollar.
- Microsoft's margin is 27.5 cents per dollar of sales.
- Oil and gas companies made $86.5 billion in profits last year.
- The financial services industry took in $498.5 billion in profits.
- The retail industry walked away with $137.5 billion.
- Information technology companies made off with $103.4 billion.
Since these other industries are making even more obscene profits than the oil industry, maybe we should impose windfall profit taxes on the computer or retail industry...and watch the price of goods go up even more.
The knee-jerk reaction of liberals to blame private industry for all our problems is tired, myopic, Marxist and un-American.
The American thing to do would be to get the government out of the way, open up new areas like ANWR for oil production, and streamline the regulatory process for new refineries. Let capitalism do the work of prosperity that it's proven over and over that it can so admirably do.
HT to the National Center for Policy Analysis.
NY Juvenile Detention Facilities Cater to Transgender Fantasies
The inmates are literally running the asylum in New York juvenile detention facilities.
CNS News reports
Transgender youth in New York's juvenile detention centers are now allowed to wear whatever uniform they choose, be called by whatever name they want and ask for special housing under a new anti-discrimination policy drawing praise from advocacy groups.
Government officials, grownups and other mature people are supposed to hold the line on standards, responsibility and reality. There should be some authority figures that can be relied on to help confused, messed-up kids, rather than indulge their delusions.
Apparently that is no longer the case in New York's juvenile system.
For too long our society has been plagued by grownups who don't want to be grownups, people who don't want status but not responsibility, who cave to every whim in the hopes that people will like them. Too few people in authority have the courage to act like adults, and we wonder why all our children act like spoiled brats.
On detention facility policy in New York:
While all residents may ask to be called by a preferred first name rather than their legal one, the policy says males who believe they are female must be called "she" and females who believe they are male must be referred to as "he." Staff must use the preferred name and pronoun in any documents they file.
Doesn't matter what reality is. Doesn't matter what their name really is. Doesn't matter what's between their legs or in their chromosomes. Officials should indulge the fantasy of the inmates.
I wonder: if someone claimed they thought they were a French conqueror, would they call him Napoleon?
And if they claimed they were a staff member and free to leave the detention facility as they pleased, why not indulge that fantasy, too?
Marxists, Socialists and Communists For Obama
It's rare that you see a blast of naked honesty in any political contest, but especially from the Left.
This one isn't totally honest, but it's as close as you're ever likely to get in the world of politics: it's a subweb right off the official Obama '08 campaign website called "Marxists/Socialists/Communists for Obama."
I took a couple of screen prints, because surely somebody in the Obama camp is going to have the good sense to bury this page at the bottom of the ocean when they realize the public knows about it:
Here's a closer look at the introduction to this subweb:
This group is for self-proclaimed Marxists/Communists/Socialists for the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency. By no means is he a true Marxist, but under Karl Marx's writings we are to support the party with the best interests of the mobilization of the proletariat. Though the Democratic Socialists of America or the Communist Patty of America may have more Socialististic values, it is pointless to vote for these candidates due to the fact that there is virutally no chance they will be elected on a National level. The members of this group are not Leninists, Stalinists, etc. and do not support or condone the actions of North Korea, China, Cuba or any other self-procalimed "Marxist States." They do not in anyway represent the Marxist philosophy nor do they represent Socialism/ Communsim. We support Barack Obama because he knows what is best for the people!
Here's a screen print of the text from the website:
The primary dishonesty in this otherwise refreshingly transparent site is that, while they call themselves "Marxists/Socialists/Communists for Obama," oddly they profess that they "do not in anyway represent the Marxist philosophy nor do they represent Socialism/ Communsim" (and apparently don't own a spell-check). That's like starting a group called "Boy Scouts for Obama" while saying that this group "does not in any way represent Boy Scout philosophy nor does it represent Boy Scouts." Huh?
Some of the posts reflect what you'd expect from a site named after a philosophy which is the antithesis of American ideals and values.
One post acknowledges the great opportunity to be found in America, "but on the other hand" says the system which fuels this opportunity is a "perverse economic system." The word "ingrate" comes to mind...
Also criticised is "a system that attacks the family, moral values." Funny, conservatives usually support capitalism, and conservatives usually support the family and moral values. Ironically, it's usually the same people who worship Marxism who worship licentiousness and attack family and moral values. The term "calling the kettle" comes to mind...
In another post on "The Role of Government," the author calls for unconstitutional social programs and says those who oppose such programs are "monsters, desensitized to any suffering." I wonder if the author realizes that the founders who created this country, the ones who risked their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor and suffered the privations of the Revolutionary War, would fit this description of "monsters, desensitized to any suffering" since they clearly did not believe the government had a role or responsibility in dispensing charity.
It's rare that you get a glimpse of what you'll really be getting in a liberal candidate before it's too late. Go check out this site before they wise up and hide it.
HT to Free Republic.
President Bush Can Remove Oil Drilling Ban
President Bush has been calling on congress to lift the moratorium on oil drilling so we can move United States energy policy into the 21st Century. However, it seems Bush hasn't done all he can to make that happen.
From CNS News:
Other leading Democrats on Capitol Hill also said they were surprised that Bush has not yet rescinded the executive office ban on drilling, which was established by his father, President George H.W. Bush, in 1990.
Congress imposed a moratorium on offshore drilling in 1981 and has extended it annually each year for all coastal waters, except for parts of the Gulf of Mexico and some waters off the coast of Alaska.
In 1990, the elder Bush also implemented an executive ban, which was extended by President Clinton, to last until June 2012. If the current president were to rescind that executive order, it would be a symbolic move because the congressional moratorium would still disallow further drilling.
Executive orders don't have the same teeth as laws passed by congress, so this EO has limited relevance.
Still, President Bush should do everything within his power to remove obstacles (or excuses) to new domestic oil production.
If all it does is remove one more nail Democrats have been using to hang their environmental extremist hats, then it's worth it.
Perhaps between removing this obstacle, and $4.00 gas, we'll finally do what we should have done decades ago.
Founding Maryland
American Minute from William J. Federer
JUNE 20, 1632, King Charles I of England granted a charter for the Colony of Maryland, named for his Catholic wife, Queen Henrietta Maria, stating: "Charles, by the Grace of God, of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith...Whereas our well beloved...subject Coecilius Calvert, Baron of Baltimore, in our Kingdom of Ireland...being animated with a laudable, and pious Zeal for extending the Christian Religion...hath humbly besought Leave of Us that he may transport, by his own...expense, a numerous Colony of the English Nation, to certain...parts of America...partly occupied by Savages, having no Knowledge of the Divine Being."
Maryland's Charter continued: "With the increasing Worship and Religion of Christ within said Region...shall...be built...Churches, Chapels, and Places of Worship."
Lord Baltimore sent two ships, the Ark and the Dove, to settle the colony. Buying land from the Indians, they founded the city of St. Mary's as a refuge for persecuted Catholics.
In 1649, they extended liberty to Protestants by issuing the Toleration Act, which stated: "That no person... within this province...professing to believe in Jesus Christ shall...from henceforth be any ways troubled or molested...in respect of his or her religion."
Immediate Lawsuits Not in Homosexual Battle Plan on Marriage
Now that judges in California have manufactured a "right" for homosexuals to call their unions "marriage," lawsuits are expected in other states--especially those with no constitutional amendments protecting marriage, or the few states that don't even have Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMA).
That expectation may not necessarily come to pass right away, however, according to an article by OneNewsNow.
The article focuses on a "marriage battle plan" put together by nine pro-homosexual groups: Human Rights Campaign, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), Lambda Legal, National Center for Lesbian Rights, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), Equality Federation, and Freedom to Marry. The plan is called "Make Change, Not Lawsuits" (PDF).
The strategy calls for a slower approach that could have greater impact in the long run than filing lawsuits to force homosexual "marriage" on other states.
Instead, the pro-homosexual document argues that homosexual couples who have "married" in Massachusetts and California should simply put their relationships in front of friends and family and demand that it be treated as normal. That, says Staver, is a process he calls "progressive desensitization."
"Essentially, they are doing the so-called 'boil the frog in the water' routine," he speculates. "They're wanting to, basically, prepare the ground, prepare the ideas and thinking so that, one day, you just simply wake up and same-sex 'marriage' has become commonplace," he explains. "And then, once people accept that kind of relationship, then they're going to bring out the cross-dressers, the transvestites, the trans-sexuals, and other kinds of deviant activity."
The frog in the boiling water. That is indeed what has put us where we are. The homosexual agenda has been pushed just slow enough that the general public never quite wakes up to the danger and "jumps out of the pot." The temperature is so hot at this point, however, our goose is almost cooked.
Pro-family groups and individuals are going to have to wake up and abandon this losing defensive strategy they've fought for decades. Wars aren't won with defensive strategies, and there has undoubtedly been a war against marriage, family, morality and traditional values for a long time. It's time to go on the offensive and regain the ground we've forfeited in the last 50 years.
Rally For Life Decries Govt Participation in Abortion Business
By Alexander J. Sheffrin
Christian Post Reporter
Thu, Jun. 19 2008 06:37 PM ET
SAN FRANCISCO – Pro-life groups across California gathered in front of the Sacramento court house Wednesday to protest what they said was state compliance in the slaughter of the unborn.
Groups like Planned Parenthood – the nation’s largest provider of surgical abortions – should not be allowed to receive federal and state funding to finance abortions, pro-life groups said at the “Rally for Life.”
Last year alone, over $30 million of state taxpayers’ money were used to finance abortions, according to The Coalition for Women and Children.
“[O]ur state budget is in crisis. That money could have been spent to provide salaries for over 900 elementary school teachers,” the group said in a statement.
“The women and children of our state need services, not abortions! Abortions hurt the women who have them and deprive us of the children who are our legacy,” the group added.
In a statement this week, The American Life League said it was encouraged to see that pro-life supporters were beginning to challenge groups like Planned Parenthood and others that operate on federal funding.
“We are happy to see California pro-lifers focusing more attention on [Planned Parenthood] and the reasons why this billion-dollar, baby-killing business should not get away with breaking the law,” the group said.
Earlier this year, a study released by Planned Parenthood revealed that it had received over $300 million in tax payer funding – an increase of nearly 11 percent from the previous year.
Last year, the pro-choice organization also said it serviced record numbers of patients and earned over $1 billion in profits, despite an overall decline in the number of abortions throughout the nation.
Founded in 1916 by Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood operates in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, describing itself as "the nation's leading sexual and reproductive health care advocate and provider."
Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Facing Crisis, Anglicans Meet in Jerusalem
By Lillian Kwon
Christian Post Reporter
Thu, Jun. 19 2008 12:30 PM ET
Conservative Anglicans holding a global gathering to affirm their orthodox Christian roots were forced to end their preparatory consultation early when their leader was held up at the border of Jordan.
Participants of the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) had planned four days of prayer, fellowship and networking in Amman, Jordan, this week before opening their major summit in Jerusalem on Sunday. But Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola, who has led the conservative campaign against the liberalism of Anglican churches in the West, could not enter into Jordan from Israel.
"He was kept in bureaucratic limbo," GAFCON spokesman the Rev. Arne Fjeldstad told Reuters, clarifying that Akinola, chairman of GAFCON, was not denied entry. "They claimed that, as a diplomatic passport holder, he had to give advance warning that he was coming. He decided to go back to Jerusalem."
According to a statement Fjeldstad released Wednesday, "previously granted permission for the Jordan consultation was deemed insufficient." Both Akinola and Archbishop Greg Venables of Southern Cone were unable to enter the country.
The Amman meeting ended early and participants moved to Jerusalem on Thursday.
More than 1,000 Anglican leaders and lay persons, representing 75 percent of the Anglican Communion, are meeting partly in protest to an upcoming wider summit called the Lambeth Conference, which is a once-a-decade meeting of all bishops in the 77-million member Communion.
Many of the conservative Anglicans are opposed to the invitation of bishops, mainly from the U.S. Episcopal Church, who supported the consecration of openly gay bishop V. Gene Robinson in 2003. But the separate conservative meeting isn't all over a gay bishop, they insist. They contend the American church body along with others is departing from orthodox Christianity.
Some said they will not attend Lambeth "as their consciences will not allow it" and others said they will attend both GAFCON – labeled as a pilgrimage to go back to the roots of their faith – and Lambeth in July.
The Rev. Canon Daryl Fenton, chief operating officer of the conservative Anglican Communion Network, insists that GAFCON is not about North America or the problems that are dividing the Communion.
"It is about expanding a faithful, orthodox Anglican witness worldwide," he said in a statement. "It is also about working together to sail through the storms assailing the western colonial model that has characterized the Anglican Communion for the past century.
"The storms are here and, frankly, the traditional structures of the Anglican Communion don’t appear ready to deal with them."
GAFCON participants said they will chart the future of the global Anglican Communion and outline mission imperatives for the next 25 years for orthodox Anglicans but they are not planning a formal schism.
A book entitled The Way, The Truth and the Life will be released Thursday, providing the theological and historical foundation for the movement of orthodox Anglicans attending GAFCON, June 22-29. The book, prepared by GAFCON Theological Resource Team, deals frankly with the crisis facing the Anglican Communion, discusses what is at stake in the conflict, defines "authentic Anglicanism," and presents what the future holds for orthodox Anglicanism.
“We have made enormous efforts since 1997 in seeking to avoid this crisis, but without success. Now we confront a moment of decision. If we fail to act, we risk leading millions of people away from the faith revealed in the Holy Scriptures and also, even more seriously, we face the real possibility of denying our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ,” Akinola writes.
Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Obama on Your Shoulder
I was alerted to this video by columnist Marie Jon'.
It's a fun look at how Barack Obama knows what's best for us of the unwashed masses, all from his very own personal moral center--himself.
Thanks, Marie!
Mary Katharine Ham, with the help of her favorite songwriter, explores life under the new rules and politics of an Obama administration that's in all your business.
FDR D-Day Speech Set to Top Gun Theme
This is a little dates, with the anniversary of D Day having passed, but I just came across it today, and it's exceedingly cool.
It's President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's D-Day speech and prayer, set to Jan Hammer's "Top Gun" theme songs--a great song from one of my favorite movies, as the background to one of the most (if not THE most) phenomenal invasion in human history.
Note that FDR was praying in public, in the hearing of all Americans, and he was a Democrat. And he got away with it!
Canadian Court Overrules Father's Grounding of Daughter
Canada's National Post and other media sources are reporting on the outrageous court decision in Canada that overrode a father's grounding of his daughter to punish her for bad behavior and disobedience.
According to the Globe and Mail, the girl was grounded because she posted photos of herself on a dating site against her father's wishes, and had an argument with her stepmother.
The court got involved because the little darling wanted to go on a school field trip and the father grounded her. Miss Precious then got herself a lawyer who argued she was being "denied a significant rite of passage," and Suzanne Tessier of the Quebec Superior Court agreed.
Digital Journal has a quote from an AFP article:
"I started an appeal of the decision today to reestablish parental authority, and to ensure that this case doesn't set a precedent," she said. Otherwise, said Beaudoin, "parents are going to be walking on egg shells from now on."
No kidding. Parent's won't be able to even put the kid in "time-out" without worrying that the court may overrule them.
With all the contrary messages from pop culture, parents have a tough enough time trying to raise kids to be decent people these days. Now the state seems intent on making it even harder.
Add this to the mountain of examples of why liberals are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG when they look to Canada and European socialist countries as the shining example of what America should be.
For Fathers
American Minute from William J. Federer
The first formal "Father's Day" was celebrated JUNE 19, 1910, in Spokane, Washington.
Sonora Louise Smart Dodd heard a church sermon on the newly established Mother's Day and wanted to honor her father, Civil War veteran William Jackson Smart, who had raised six children by himself after his wife died in childbirth. Sonora drew up a petition supported by the Young Men's Christian Association and the ministers of Spokane.
In 1916, Woodrow Wilson spoke at a Spokane Fathers' Day service.
President Nixon, in 1972, established Father's Day as a permanent national observance.
On Father's Day, 1988, Ronald Reagan said: "Children, vulnerable and dependent, desperately need security, and it has ever been a duty and a joy of fatherhood to offer it. Being a father requires strength...and more than a little courage...to persevere, to fight discouragement, and to keep working for the family."
Reagan continued: "With God's grace, fathers find the patience to teach, the fortitude to provide, the compassion to comfort, and the mercy to forgive. All of this is to say that they find the strength to love their wives and children selflessly."
President Reagan ended: "Let us...express our thanks and affection to our fathers, whether we can do so in person or in prayer."
Liberal Magazine Mocks McCain's POW Service
Anyone who's read this blog for any amount of time knows I'm not a fan of John McCain, as a senator or as a presidential candidate.
But I have the utmost respect and admiration for his military service and for what he endured for five years as a POW in Vietnam.
It's also nothing new that the Left has since the Vietnam War harbored too many people who are full of contempt and disrespect for the United States military and the brave men and women who serve there.
The latest despicable example comes from Rolling Stone magazine, as highlighted by WorldNetDaily.
The Rolling Stoned piece mocks McCain's time in the horrors of a North Vietnamese prison camp (with real torture, not barking dogs and bras on the head) using garish cartoons and statements like this:
He seems re-energized by the fact that we are all back in that same hell, back to living the PTSD-inducing nightmare that McCain himself never got to leave
Go to either the WND or the Rolling Stoned piece to see the tasteless, mocking cartoon.
People are certainly free to disagree with John McCain's policy positions (I do, and often), but such disrespect for someone who endured so much for freedom's sake and for our country is childish and cowardly.
One more proof that liberals haven't done any growing up, even since the 1960s.
South Dakota Congressional Delegation Generally Supportive of Drilling
The Argus Leader features some brief quotes from South Dakota's congressional delegation on drilling for more oil to ease our current energy crunch.
Senator John Thune gave the strongest endorsement:
Until we increase supply by safely tapping America's oil reserves in places like ANWR and off our coasts, we will continue to be held hostage by petro-dictators
Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin also gave solid support for drilling
offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR):
I support drilling both in the Outer Continental Shelf and in ANWR, as well as the increased use of renewable sources of energy
Senator Tim Johnson's support for drilling was there, but it was more tepid than Thunes or Herseth Sandlin's, and placed a strong emphasis on sticking it to those capitalistic oil companies in the short run:
I agree that additional oil supplies are part of the solution to high gasoline prices and I have supported additional drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, but I am most interested in providing immediate relief to high prices.
Go read the Argus Leader piece for the full quotes.
It is true that we could use some relief in the short run, but we didn't get ourselves into this mess overnight, and there aren't going to be any meaningful solutions to get ourselves out of it overnight.
We should have had an aggressive drilling strategy more than 10 years ago (if we had, we'd already be seeing that oil coming out of ANWR today), and made it easier to build more refineries (it's nearly impossible now, due to interference from environmental extremists, regulations, permit requirements, startup costs, etc.). With our short-sightedness and pandering to extremists, we've made this high-priced bed we're now forced to sleep in.
But we can wake up and get started RIGHT NOW to build energy independence we will still need tomorrow.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Iraq in the Election: More Emotionalism From the Left
The America-haters at MoveOn.org are at it again. This time they're coming out with an anti-McCain video that exploits raw, naive emotion against the Iraq War and the war on terrorism.
CNS News has this excerpt from the video:
"John McCain, when you say you would stay in Iraq for a hundred years, were you counting on Alex? Because if you were, you can't have him," the mother (actress) says with a quaver in her voice.
Since we have a volunteer military, it might be Alex's choice to join the military when he grows up. The odds are he'll grow up like his cowardly, naive parents, but some kids manage to find a patriot's heart from somewhere unexpected.
We most likely would have been done in Iraq a long time ago if our "allies" around the world--and the American Left--had stood firmly with us against Saddam Hussein and against the terrorism that arose in Iraq after the war. But many of our allies chose financial interest over what was right, and many in the American Left chose political points over a decisive victory for their country and safety for the Iraqi people.
The enemy has seen a deeply divided free world, and a deeply divided American political scene, and they have taken heart. Like any enemy would, they have seen our lack of resolve and it has bolstered theirs: hang on, and the weak-willed Americans will leave sooner or later, and Iraq will be ours.
If we don't decisively complete the mission in Iraq, and if we don't decisively crush terrorism, we will indeed be fighting a 100-year war (if we survive that long, with weak leadership); we will definitely be fighting until Alex is old enough. The bloodthirsty around the world will see a weak America, and they will press home the attack as they did during the do-nothing Clinton years. They will smell blood in the air, and they won't quit until they're satisfied with a carcass.
Ultimately, though, we're never going to be done with wars until God creates the new heaven and new earth. Human beings are fallen creatures with a sin nature that is going to make wars a reality until that time.
What's more, evil men cannot be reasoned with or negotiated with or made peace with; they're just not interested in any of the above. We maintain peace through strength, strength which deters the designs of evil people.
People who value safety and security would do well to acknowledge this reality, and prepare for it. And in being prepared to defeat those who would do us harm, a lot of that war might just be avoided.
This is what the Left never seems to understand. This is why, despite John McCain's failings, Barack Obama must not be elected in November.
New Wearable Feedbags Let Americans Eat More, Move Less
Good ole capitalist innovation!
New Wearable Feedbags Let Americans Eat More, Move Less
Why I'm Voting Democrat
Ben Shapiro has a good column at TownHall.com today in response to a YouTube video called "I'm Voting Republican" which is making the internet rounds.
The video has a bunch of idiotic, stereotypical statements made by mock Republicans such as
A black couple says they're voting Republican because they "like a conservative majority on the Supreme Court," with the wife noting, "we really like knowing that even if we're separate, we'll still be called equal."
Shapiro responds with his own list of "Why I'm voting Democrat" including humorous but grounded in truth reasons.
The entire list is good, but the last one kinda sums up the whole liberal enchalada:
Most of all, I'm voting Democrat because I like the ideas they have over in France, but I don't feel like moving there. I'll threaten to move, but I really won't. After all, I have a good job, healthcare, lower taxes, free speech and a social framework that promotes family structure. And all of it is defended by the most effective fighting force on the planet.
That's liberalism: demanding the easy life without having to sacrifice anything or work for it.
USGS Report: Bakken Oil Formation Not as Big as Reported
Remember the buzz of the past few months about the Bakken formation in North Dakota that was said to contain 400-500 billion barrels of oil?
The U.S. Geological Survey says it's "a myth" according to CNS News.
A USGS report issued in April estimates that there are between 3 billion to 4.3 billion barrels of oil in what is referred to as "the Bakken Formation" -- well below the 400 billion barrels discussed on the Web, but up from the previous estimate of 151 million barrels made in 1995.
Richard Pollastro, Bakken Formation task leader at the USGS, said the myth stems from a 1999 draft report -- never published -- by a now-deceased USGS employee, Leigh Price. Price estimated that the Bakken Formation holds up to 400 billion barrels of oil. To put that in perspective, Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer, has about 260 billion barrels of known oil reserves.
Price, however, died in 2000, before his study could be peer-reviewed and published, and the Bakken Formation became the fool's gold of the oil industry.
The article says the discrepancy comes from the fact that Price was trying to assess "oil generation potential" and from that trying to estimate "oil in place."
So the Bakken formation isn't going to make Saudi Arabia obsolete, but it's still a significant resource. For comparison, the most common estimate of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is about 10 billion barrels, or enough oil to produce a million barrels a day for about 30 years. The Bakken formation is about 30% to 43% of that, which isn't bad.
If we're going to get gas prices down and achieve energy independence, we're going to need to start making much greater use of our domestic resources like ANWR and more offshore drilling.
Some nuclear power plants wouldn't hurt, either.
The War of 1912
American Minute from William J. Federer
The War of 1812 began on JUNE 18, 1812.
The British captured American ships and enslaved sailors. They incited Indians to capture Fort Mims, massacring 500 men, women and children. They captured the Capitol, burnt the White House, bombarded Fort McHenry and attacked New Orleans. Outraged, many volunteered for the Army, including Davy Crockett.
In his Proclamation of War, President James Madison stated: "I do moreover exhort all the good people of the United States...as they feel the wrongs which have forced on them the last resort of injured nations...to consult the best means under the blessing of Divine Providence of abridging its calamities."
In the three years of the War, President Madison, who had introduced the First Amendment in the First Session of Congress, issued Proclamations of Public Humiliation and Prayer in 1812 and 1813, followed by a Proclamation of Public Fasting in 1814, in which he stated: "in the present time of public calamity and war a day may be...observed by the people of the United States as a day of public humiliation and fasting and of prayer to Almighty God."
After the War, in 1815, James Madison proclaimed a National Day of Thanksgiving to the "Divine Author of Every Good and Perfect Gift."
Karen Weber: Another Terri Schiavo or Not?
Terri Schiavo's world became one of isolation at the hands of her husband. He made the decisions of who could visit her, if any at all could at any given time. He made the decisions of what therapy she might receive, though he came to reject any therapy at all. He made the decisions about any stimulation that touched her day, including whether the curtains would be open or closed or even a sound of music or voice to touch her moment.
Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Barack Uh Obama for Uh President
This video of Barack Obama talking about going to Iraq is starting to make the rounds.
I, uh, am not going to say I've, uh, never said "uh" when I talk, but, uh, Obama does, uh, say "uh" a lot here.
According to Blogs for John McCain, in four minutes he registered 55 uh's:
First answer: 10 uhs
Second answer: 27 uhs
Third answer: 16 uhs
Fourth answer: 7 uhs
Final answer: 29 uhs
In the 11 minutes with questions and answers, his total reached 144 "uh's."
Uh oh! Maybe he's just not sure of his opinion about Iraq. I'm sure it's full of change and hope, however.
Maybe Obama had better get back behind that teleprompter if he wants to be president!
New Blogger at Dakota Voice
You'll soon see a new blogger here at Dakota Voice: sman.
He's from Rapid City and will have some things from the political realm on his mind to share with you from time to time.
Welcome to the fray, sman!
Pro-Life Pharmacies
What's the world coming to? We now have drug stores exercising their right of conscience not to sell tobacco and porn! And to think: the drive to force pharmacists to violate their conscience and sell contraceptives and abortifacients started it all.
Several months ago we heard the story of pharmacist John Lane in Broadus, Montana. Radical liberals filed complaints against him because he refused to (gasp) sell a product he found morally objectionable. The Montana Board of Pharmacy eventually cleared him of all complaint charges.
Lane's issue kicked off a firestorm of debate on this and other blogs in South Dakota, and ended up spawning a bill in the South Dakota legislature which attempted to remove an existing protection for pharmacists to exercise their right of conscience. Ironically, language in the bill called the pharmacist's exercise of conscience "unreasonable government intrusion" rather than the government's attempt to intrude into the moral conscience of the pharmacist. This very bad bill was defeated.
Other states like Wisconsin have also moved to impose the state version of morality (or lack thereof) on pharmacists.
Now "pro-life" pharmacies are starting to spring up, perhaps in response to this government heavy-handedness.
The Washington Post describes one of them:
When DMC Pharmacy opens this summer on Route 50 in Chantilly, the shelves will be stocked with allergy remedies, pain relievers, antiseptic ointments and almost everything else sold in any drugstore. But anyone who wants condoms, birth control pills or the Plan B emergency contraceptive will be turned away.
Feminists, of course, have a big problem with someone actually exercising their own freedom. Tolerance, the watchword of the Left, only applies when it means you bending to their way.
"I'm very, very troubled by this," said Marcia Greenberger of the National Women's Law Center, a Washington advocacy group. "Contraception is essential for women's health. A pharmacy like this is walling off an essential part of health care. That could endanger women's health."
Certainly some women are prescribed oral contraceptives, not so much to act as birth control, but to help regulate other health issues. But is this the exception, or the rule?
Also, what if the pharmacy didn't exist in the first place? There is no law (yet) that requires we grab someone of the street and say, "Hey, you! We must have a pharmacy in this town. You open one!" What would the woman supposedly "endangered" by this lack of access to contraceptives do if there was no pharmacy in the town at all?
I suppose she'd have to do what women all over South Dakota and the rest of the country already have to do when there is no pharmacy nearby--go to another town, or order their medicine through the mail. Oh, such hardships! If only the answer to all of our needs would just fall into our laps!
As Americans we enjoy more freedom than any people in the world. We even have the freedom to pursue many things that are immoral.
At the same time, other people who believe some of these things are immoral have a right not to supply those things to other people. Imagine that: everyone having freedom!
If we were talking about emergency medical care, something urgent and imminent that threatened loss of life or serious bodily harm, that would be one thing. But that is almost certainly never the case in this issue. Even if it were, most doctors have drug samples on hand in their practice; if the only pharmacist in the area wouldn't dispense contraception, and it was a matter of life and death that the woman have the contraception right now, the doctor could likely give her enough samples to hold her over until she could order her prescription through the mail or get to another town--just as she'd have to do if there was no pharmacy in the area at all.
Several pharmacies around the country have already signed on with Pharmacists for Life International to follow pro-life guidelines.
Some pro-life pharmacies are identical to typical drugstores except that they do not stock some or all forms of contraception. Others also refuse to sell tobacco, rolling papers or pornography. Many offer "alternative" products, including individually compounded prescription drugs, as well as vitamins and homeopathic and herbal remedies.
The article mentions criticism that some pharmacies will stock Viagra for men but not contraceptives for women.
While I understand the perception of inequity, and acknowledge that Viagra and other similar products have been abused by some men, there remain a couple of critical differences. Viagra simply makes sex possible for some men; it doesn't interfere with conception, which some people consider wrong. Viagra also doesn't end the life of a human being after it has been conceived as abortifacients do. Plan B "Emergency Contraceptives" can do this, and so can some regular oral contraceptives.
One pharmacist, John Bruchalski, says he and others like him don't want to "leave their faith at the door." This means that he and others like him take their faith seriously, as it should be.
Any religious faith worth holding in the first place should inform and affect every area of a person's life--even their vocation and how they do their work.
And the government shouldn't force them to violate their conscience in order to do their work. Would we rather have pharmacists (and cops, firemen, stock brokers, doctors, government officials, et al) with no moral conscience? Think about that for a while...
NewsBusted Conservative Comedy 6/17/2008
Topics in this episode:
--Barack Obama gets only a small bump in the polls after getting the nomination
--CNN markets itself as the neutral news channel
--The Obama campaign's new anti-rumor web site
--800 rats in an Oregon house!
--K-Mart sells sweatpants promoting abstinence
NewsBusted is a comedy webcast about the news of the day, uploaded every Tuesday and every Friday.
If you like the show, be sure to subscribe!
Church of England Wrestles with Female Bishops, Homosexual Issues
By Maria Mackay
Christian Today Reporter
Tue, Jun. 17 2008 09:01 AM ET
“There is no doubt that we are at an unsettled moment in the Church of England,” the Secretary General of the Church of England General Synod told journalists on Monday.
Outlining the agenda for the July Synod in York, William Fittall said that tension over the scheduled four-day debate on women bishops was being compounded by weekend reports of an unauthorized church “wedding” blessing for two homosexual clergymen last month, and an imminent conference of conservative Anglicans in the Holy Land.
The Global Anglican Future Conference will bring conservative Anglican clergy to Jerusalem on June 22-29 to “prepare for an Anglican future in which the Gospel is uncompromised” – referring to their dissatisfaction with the U.S. Episcopal Church’s decision to embrace homosexuality. The conference takes place just weeks before the Lambeth Conference, a decennial meeting of bishops from across the global Anglican Communion.
"This was always going to be a big summer,” said Fittall. “Lambeth is a big event in the wider Communion and the fact that it is considering women bishops goes to the heart of what kind of church we want to be. The weekend's story has caused further anxiety on the part of many."
The Bishop of London, the Rt. Rev. Richard Chartres, has launched an investigation into reports that the Rev. Peter Cowell and the Rev. David Lord exchanged rings and vows at a service of blessing at St. Bartholomew the Great Church in the City of London. Current Church of England rules do not permit such services for same-sex partnerships.
Fittall predicted that the debate on women bishops, however, would “overshadow” the York Synod.
“This is going to be the issue that is there throughout and the whole of synod is a bit anxious because nobody is confident about what the outcome will be,” he said. “It is genuinely hard to call."
Fittall added that there would be no quick closure to the debate and that the motion would take several years to pass through the legislative process.
The motion, drawn up by the House of Bishops, seeks to rescind the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod 1993 and replace it with a “code of practice.” Although the motion promises “special arrangements” for opponents of women bishops, some fear they will not go far enough.
Women were allowed to be ordained as priests beginning in November 1992 when the General Synod of the Church of England voted for its approval. In 1993, the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod was introduced in order to protect congregations who felt that women should not minister as priests in their local church. The measure recognized differing opinions on the issue and that such a change needed to be tested and received by the Church.
More than 500 priests left the Church of England after it accepted women into the priesthood, many receiving compensation. Fittall said there were no plans at present to offer similar financial compensation to clergy who choose to leave over the ordination of female bishops.
Reform, the evangelical group within the Church of England, released a statement Monday urging members of General Synod to “pull back from the brink” of the “deep division” it believes will result from accepting the motion un-amended.
Rod Thomas, Reform’s chairman and a member of General Synod, said, “A refusal by Synod to provide legal provisions for those who disagree with women bishops is tantamount to a clear decision to exclude many faithful Anglicans from the Church of England.
“We want to urge Synod members to pull back from the brink, to recognise the deep division that will occur if no legislative provisions are made.”
Fittall said he did not expect the Church of England to split on the issue. “I urge caution over the wilder stories,” he said. “I wouldn’t write us out just yet.”
He pointed to the record numbers of people training for ordination in the Church of England – more than 1,500 – saying it was “good news” for the Church despite the financial challenges brought on by the increase. To help cover the costs, churches will be asked to increase their contributions to the Church treasury by 6 percent.
Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Don't Shoot Until You See the Whites of Their Eyes
American Minute from William J. Federer
"Don't Shoot Until You See the Whites of Their Eyes!" was the order given JUNE 17, 1775, by Colonel William Prescott to troops on Breed's Hill, adjacent Bunker Hill, guarding the north entrance to Boston Harbor.
They were aiming at 2,300 British soldiers, under General Howe, marching at them with bayonets fixed. Twice the Americans repelled them until they ran out of gunpowder.
The British then burned the nearby town of Charlestown. This first action of the Continental Army saw over 1,000 British killed, and nearly 500 Americans.
This same day, 300 miles away in Philadelphia, the Continental Congress drafted George Washington's commission as commander-in-chief, for which he refused a salary.
Washington wrote to his wife, Martha: "Dearest...It has been determined in Congress, that the whole army raised for the defense of the American Cause shall be put under my care, and that it is necessary for me to proceed immediately to Boston to take...command...I shall rely therefore, confidently, on that Providence which has heretofore preserved, and been bountiful to me."
Washington ended: "I...got Colonel Pendleton to Draft a Will...the Provision made for you, in case of my death, will, I hope, be agreeable."
For the Bible Tells Me So: The Real Story, Part 7
BY BOB ELLIS
DAKOTA VOICE
This is the seventh installment in a 8-part series examining the DVD "For the Bible Tells Me So."
Introduction - Why the DVD Deserves a Closer Look
Part 1 - Building Sympathy Without Exegesis
Part 2 - The Bible as a 'Truth Buffet'
Part 3 - Understanding the Bible...Or Rewriting It?
Part 4 - Science or the Bible...or Neither?
Part 5 - Why Was Sodom Destroyed?
Part 6 - What Does the New Testament Say about Homosexuality?
The next segment of "For the Bible Tells Me So" is yet another designed to elicit sympathy without regard for what the Bible says (such segments comprise the bulk of the film). Dick and Jane Gephardt affirm that they have "unconditional love" for their daughter Chrissy, and that this means their love has no conditions.
Unconditional love is a good thing, and certainly something parents should have for their children. However, I believe the Gephardts, like many people, misunderstand what Godly "unconditional love" looks like. It does not mean you adjust your morality to accept whatever the loved one is doing as correct, and it doesn't mean you excuse the wrong committed by the loved one.
God has "unconditional love" for humanity, but it doesn't change or negate his holiness one iota. Unconditional love is not unconditional acceptance or unconditional approval. Wrong is still wrong, and sin is still sin, and sin remains unacceptable to God. Only the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, which each sinner must accept individually, can make us "right" in God's eyes. And even then, the Bible makes it very clear that we are not to continue sinning once we've received the regeneration of Jesus Christ--we are to start acting like the holy person Christ has enabled us to be.
In fact, if God had the same kind of “unconditional love” promoted by this film, there would have been no need for Jesus to come to earth, live as a human, and die on the cross to pay the price for our sins. God would have just adjusted his definition of right and wrong and would “accept us just the way we are.” He didn’t do that, though. God’s holy and just nature required that our sins be paid for; since we were unable to pay that debt, Jesus suffered and died in our place. We can take advantage of the pardon bought by Jesus, but we have to renounce our sin and walk away from it in order to do so.
The film includes a segment where Jake Reitan, his parents and others go to Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs and stage a protest. A Baptist minister speaks negatively of Focus on the Family founder Dr. James Dobson, stating that while Dobson "has no theological training whatsoever, but "He claims on the airwaves to be the lone interpreter of what is God's will for everyday families in America."
One does not need formal theological training to understand the basic moral instruction God has issued to humanity in the Bible. It is quite clear with only minimal study. Regardless, Dr. Dobson has far more Biblical study and understanding than this detractor gives him credit for. And Dobson does not in any way paint himself as the sole interpreter of right and wrong; he places himself under the authority of the Bible.
The film also briefly examines ministries like Exodus International which help homosexuals who want to get out of the lifestyle to become healthy again. They claim the phrase "reparative therapy" is a misnomer because "there is nothing to repair." Yet homosexuality is, on a number of levels, obviously not a normal or healthy lifestyle.
Until homosexuals harassed and lobbied the American Psychiatric Association relentlessly in the 1970s, homosexuality was listed as a disorder. It obviously violates the natural design for human sexuality, since no reproduction is possible between people of the same sex, and God makes it very clear not only what that design was ordained to be, but that he disapproves of any sexual expression other than that.
Homosexuality also brings with it a much higher risk of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) including not only AIDS but gonorrhea, syphilis, Chlamydia and hepatitis. There is an increased risk of anal cancer, bowels that no longer function properly, and an increased risk of depression, substance abuse and suicide.
Homosexual apologists, of course, claim that the high rate of depression and suicide is because of the condemnation of society, but could it perhaps be the emotional toll that anyone, regardless of what sin they live with habitually, will pay? Whether they are an alcoholic, drug user, philanderer, or whatever--when we suppress the conscience, there is a mental and emotional price to be paid.
As the film nears the end, it again treats us to images of Adolph Hitler, the KKK and other hateful people as the dialog talks about how some groups (implying Christians) want to "get rid of others." The parallel is clear here: Christians hate homosexuals and want to eradicate homosexuals through whatever means necessary, including violence.
"The Bible is an incredibly powerful weapon, people use it as a weapon, justifying violence and justifying torture and justifying death,” we are told by Rev. Susan Sparks. “We have to be terribly careful about this Scripture that people hold tight to. And be clear about compassion and love because what it otherwise will do is wreak havoc and torture and death."
Violence does occur against homosexuals sometimes, but it is not condoned by the Christ and is not condoned by any Christians I know; Christians are commanded by God to love homosexuals and tell them about God's truth, not commit violence against them.
When conducting some "on the street interviews," one lady in the film says "Jesus, he always embraced the outcasts. So how a church can make someone an outcast and call themselves 'Christian' doesn't make any sense."
This is a common misconception, but the primary goal and focus of the Bible and Christianity are not about "inclusion." While inclusion is positive in the proper context, God is first about obedience and holiness. In 1 Corinthians chapter 5 Paul instructs the church at Corinth to remove the unrepentant immoral person from their congregation; obviously not an “inclusive” act.
Christ said he was "the way and the truth and the life," not simply A way, and not very inclusive of other belief systems. He told sinners to "go and sin no more," not "go and do as you see fit."
Christ also said in Matthew chapter 18 that if a person is unwilling to listen to Godly counsel, you are to disassociate with him.
Jesus made it clear in Matthew chapter 7 that not everyone would make it to heaven (not very inclusive), and that not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will make it to heaven, "only he who does the will of my Father." If we are willfully doing what the Father has said he doesn't approve of, how likely is it that we're on that "straight and narrow" path to heaven?
Another misleading idea presented by the film was that marriage commitments are fluid. Some of the homosexuals who had been married discussed the end of their marriages. For Bishop Robinson, he and his wife decided the only way they could honor their marriage vows to one another was to "let each other go." His wife said they didn't "renounce our vows, but release our vows."
Whether one is homosexual or heterosexual, such twisted logic of honoring a vow by breaking that vow dishonors not only the individuals in the marriage, but God's design and commands regarding marriage. We are not allowed to "release our vows" even if, as Chrissy Gephardt put it, "the spark, the romance" goes away.
In Part 8 next week: what questions does this DVD answer and which ones does it fail to answer?
