Islam Channel to Show British Interfaith Game Show

Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post

By Ethan Cole
Christian Post Reporter
Wed, Jun. 04 2008 03:23 PM ET

What is thought to be the first interfaith game show in Britain will begin broadcasting next week to dozens of countries on the Islam Channel.

The show, “Faith Off,” draws contestants with religious backgrounds from Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam and Sikhism, and has them compete for cash prizes by answering questions on both general and religious knowledge.

“Faith Off” is filmed from the London studios of the Islam Channel and will begin broadcasting on June 15, according to TotallyJewish.com.

Producer Abrir Hussain said his goal in creating the show is to facilitate better understanding between different religions.

"I wanted to do something to promote good relations and bring a new approach to the interfaith debate other than that of the usual consultative round table format,” Hussain explained to Ecumenical News International.

Another goal is to attract the attention of younger people, many of whom may consider interfaith initiatives praiseworthy yet “boring.”

Hussain noted, however, that the show is not designed to debate contentious issues. It will instead serve as an opportunity for discussions based on questions asked.

The show will create two teams of four that will answer questions posed by Muslim comedian Jeff Mirza, according to ENI. In the home-or-away round, contestants can answer questions about their own faith or the opposing team’s for additional points.

Contestants are not theologians or scholars, but will vary in degree of religious knowledge.

“A game show is an original idea, to say the least,” said Danny Judelson, one of the show’s Jewish contestants, to U.K.-based Guardian newspaper. “I thought it was interesting that the channel were taking seriously the opportunity to educate their audience. There’s a very serous purpose behind it.”

Questions will include identifying blurred pictures of religious figures and answering multiple choice questions on religion and current affairs.

The show’s producer hopes participants and viewers will recognize the similarities between religions rather than only the differences, and build better relations.

“We’re living in a multi-faith, multi-cultural society,” Hussain told the Guardian newspaper.

“You learn about religions at school and then you forget, so it’s about transferring the basic blocks of knowledge,” he said, “it’s also about learning the similarities between religions, instead of focusing on the differences.”

“Faith Off” will be shown in 31 countries and also be available on the Internet, according to ENI.

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

Should Hillary Be Obama's VP Running Mate?

NewsMax says Jimmy Carter advises against Barack Obama naming Hillary Clinton to be his Vice President.

Naming Hillary Clinton as Barack Obama’s vice presidential running mate “would be the worst mistake that could be made,” said former President Jimmy Carter.

In an interview Carter gave to the U.K.-based publication,” The Guardian,” Carter urged Democratic presidential nominee Obama not to pick the New York Senator for the bottom slot on his general election ticket. Carter cites opinion polls showing that half of U.S. voters have a negative view of Clinton.

It is true that Hillary's negative numbers are very high. But then, a lot of Democrats (somewhere between 20-24%, depending on the poll) say they won't support the party's nominee if it isn't Hillary; putting her on the ticket as VP might diffuse that discontent.

Besides, Democrats are big into victim groups. With Obama and Clinton, the ticket would be in a perfect position to pander identity politics to blacks and females like never before.

But there's another factor here that should help cut through the murkiness of whether Hillary should or shouldn't be on the ticket.

Given that I can't think of a single thing Jimmy Carter has ever been right about (e.g. energy, Iran, the Panama Canal, Afghanistan, the economy, terrorism, etc.), that means odds are pretty good that bringing Hillary on as VP would be a good thing for the Democrats.

Therefore I think Obama should follow Carter's advice. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Who says it's difficult to figure out the right thing to do?

Huckabee the Socialist

When I was in the voting booth last night, I was tempted for several seconds to vote for Mike Huckabee as a protest vote against John McCain--even though I know the matter is settled.

The length of my vacillation came mainly because they're both left-of-center and I find them both extremely distasteful as a Republican nominee. I was tempted to make a protest-vote for Huckabee anyway, since at least he doesn't bear contempt for Christian voters (neither Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo or Fred Thompson were on the ballot), but in the end I voted for McCain, since voting for Huckabee wouldn't really accomplish anything and I could at least "support my party's nominee" this way.

Now, after seeing this Huckabee quote posted by Tommy Oliver at Race 4 2008, I'm glad I didn't vote for Huckabee.

“The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it’s this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it’s a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says “look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don’t get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it.” Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it’s not an American message.” -Governor Mike Huckabee, May 26, 2008

Not an American message? It is THE historic and central American message!

Nobody is saying let old people die and let kids suffer without education and healthcare. We're talking about the proper and constitutional role of government, here!

As I said countless times before last fall and this spring, Huckabee is a pro-life liberal. In addition to a profound misunderstanding of the nature of evil, he profoundly misunderstands human nature and the free market system.

Is Mike Huckabee that ignorant of history that he doesn't even realize that charity was handled completely by the private sector before FDR's New Deal?

Doesn't he realize that churches and private charity used to handle all handouts and hand-ups in this country? Huckabee is a former pastor; he ought to know this, in addition to the Biblical examples of private charity, without a single one to government wealth redistribution.

Doesn't Mike Huckabee realize that there is zero constitutional authority for programs which spend taxpayer money for the benefit of the "needy?" An American president should know that our Constitution creates a government of enumerated powers; in other words, if it isn't spelled out and listed, the government has no authority to do it.

Is Mike Huckabee ignorant of what so many great statesmen of America once knew:

- Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated. - Thomas Jefferson

- With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. – James Madison

- I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. – James Madison

- Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. – James Madison

- We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. — Congressman Davy Crockett

I hope Huckabee doesn't plan on coming back for another run in 2012. There are enough liberals who run for president in the Democrat Party; we don't need more liberals running under the Republican ticket.

Calif. Supreme Court Refuses 4-3 to Stay Homosexual 'Marriage' Decision

By one vote, California Supreme Court ignores pleas of California voters and state attorneys general to prevent needless legal turmoil nationwide

Wednesday, June 04, 2008, 12:08 PM (MST)
ADF Media Relations 480-444-0020

SAN FRANCISCO — The decision of the California Supreme Court Wednesday refusing to wait until after a vote in November on a proposed state marriage amendment to implement its May 15 marriage decision ignored the pleas of millions of California voters and attorneys general from 10 other states to prevent legal chaos, according to attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund.

“The court has not only ignored the will of the people of California, it has imposed years of legal chaos quite possibly on the entire nation. Without exaggeration, this decision is the most egregious case of judicial activism in modern American history. By one vote, the court deafened its ears to millions of California voters and pleas from state attorneys general nationwide to avoid the potential of nationwide legal turmoil,” said ADF Senior Counsel Glen Lavy, who argued before the court March 4.

Three of the justices wanted to grant the motion for rehearing filed by ADF attorneys May 22. Though the majority of the justices refused to prevent potential legal chaos, the court did agree to the portion of the motion requesting that the court officially note the status of the marriage amendment, which the California secretary of state certified for the November ballot Monday.

“Voters should take note now: same-sex couples who plan on obtaining ‘marriage’ licenses between now and November do so fully knowing that the amendment vote is going to happen; therefore, activists are simply attempting to play upon voter sympathy. These couples already have every right the state can provide, and those rights are unaffected by the decision. A desire to manipulate the democratic process and a total lack of concern for the ramifications are the only reasons a couple would not wait a few months for a vote on the amendment,” Lavy explained.

“The people of California will vote in November,” Lavy added. “The courts report to the people, not the other way around.”

A copy of the order from the California Supreme Court refusing to grant a stay of its marriage decision and granting the request for notice filed by ADF attorneys in the consolidated marriage cases, In re: Marriage Cases, which includes the lawsuit Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund v. City and County of San Francisco, is available here.

The text of the proposed constitutional amendment is available here.

ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

School Officials Harass Boy over Pro-Life T-Shirt

Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post

By Alexander J. Sheffrin
Christian Post Reporter
Wed, Jun. 04 2008 01:48 PM ET

A Christian legal group is suing a middle school in Hutchinson, Minn., in federal court over the right of a 12-year-old boy to wear pro-life t-shirts in school.

The boy, referenced in the lawsuit only as “K. B.,” was reportedly and repeatedly harassed, ostracized, publicly ridiculed, and threatened with disciplinary action by school officials because he wore t-shirts produced by the American Life League as part of their anti-abortion awareness campaign.

The t-shirts displayed images of unborn babies accompanied with such messages as, "Abortion: Growing, Growing, Gone,” "What part of abortion don't you understand?" and "Never Known – Not Forgotten" alongside “47,000,000 babies aborted 1973-2008" printed on the back.

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), said that the case was a clear issue of viewpoint discrimination. Hutchinson Middle School officials were clearly in the wrong, he said.

“This courageous young Christian was ridiculed and threatened by teachers for expressing his deeply held beliefs. These school officials clearly violated the U. S. Constitution and the school’s own written Dress Policy which specifically states it is not intended to abridge the rights of students to express political or religious messages,” he explained in a statement.

Although the school lists as its policy that students with “inappropriate” clothing deemed disruptive to "the educational process” may be sent home, TMLC attorney Brandon Bolling noted that the young student was never asked to do this.

“The Supreme Court has held it permissible for public schools to limit student speech only when there is an actual and substantial disruption of school activity,” he said.

“That is not the case here. The only people who took issue with the pro-life t-shirts were the school’s employees – in fact, if any one caused any disruption, it was the school’s employees, by their constant public harassment of our client because they disagreed with his pro-life message,” he added.

The boy’s mother told the local St. Paul Pioneer Press that she hopes the case will help rectify the unjust treatment of her son.

"My son kept getting singled out," she said. "He should be able to wear those shirts at school, and they decided that he can't. It's not right," she said.

"He knows [abortion] is the termination of life. He knows that it's wrong,” she added. “Even if he's the only person at the school who believes that, he should still be able to wear that shirt under the Constitution, and they've taken that away from him.”

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