Saturday, December 2, 2006

San Diego Cross Will Stay

San Diego Cross Will Stay

CBN News
December 1, 2006


CBNNews.com -- The California State Appeals Court has given a legal victory to supporters of the San Diego cross.



The 29-foot cross monument sits on public land atop Mount Soledad near the city of San Diego.

The cross has been the subject of controversy, because some say it is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

With legal challenges mounting, President Bush has signed legislation that transferred the property to the Federal government.

Voters approved a separate but similar measure. However, a judge ruled against it.
On Thursday, the appelliate court overturned the judge's decision, ruling the transfer of land is constitutional.

The Christian Broadcasting Network, Inc. © 2006

‘Nativity Story’ actress should not be shunned, leaders say

‘Nativity Story’ actress should not be shunned, leaders say

Nov 30, 2006
By Erin Roach
Baptist Press

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--Amid reports that the teenage actress who plays Mary in the new movie “The Nativity Story” is pregnant out of wedlock, some Christians are wondering how to respond to a lead character’s personal life in a movie they have enthusiastically embraced.

The 16-year-old actress, Keisha Castle-Hughes, plays the role of the Virgin Mary in the Hollywood rendition of the story surrounding Jesus’ birth, which opens in theaters Dec. 1. In October, the agency that represents her confirmed she is expecting a baby in the spring and the father is her boyfriend of three years.

Knowing that Christians might have a problem with the news, Phil Boatwright, editor and film reviewer for previewonline.org, asked the movie’s producers, Marty Bowen and Wyck Godfrey, about the situation.

“They made no judgment call but were proud that this young girl thought more of the baby within than her own career,” Boatwright told Baptist Press. “I thought of that too. There are a lot of 16-year-old girls who get pregnant. But this girl is not only young, she’s an up-and-coming actress, yet she felt this life was more important than herself.”

The Australian-born Castle-Hughes was nominated for an Academy Award for her role in “Whale Rider,” and she played the Queen of Naboo in last year’s “Star Wars: Episode III -- Revenge of the Sith.”

Boatwright said he hopes that although Christians don’t want to condone sex outside marriage they also don’t want to be too judgmental.

“This young woman played Mary, the mother of Jesus,” Boatwright said. “I’m praying that if she doesn’t already have a relationship with our Savior that she soon will. And I’m praying that little unborn child will someday proclaim Jesus as Messiah.”

Richard Ross, co-founder of the national abstinence movement True Love Waits, took a similar approach, advising Christians not to react to Castle-Hughes the way the world expects them to react.

“In the early moments of True Love Waits, I was invited to appear on the ‘Jerry Springer Show.’ They already had enlisted three teenage girls pregnant before marriage to appear as well,” Ross recounted to BP. “One of the producers called to say, ‘Rev. Ross, I am sure you’re infuriated by these girls that have been so immoral. I’m guessing you will want to call them sluts and other things on the broadcast.’

“I answered, ‘No, I would never say such things. I love those young ladies even now. I will want to be gentle with them and tell them that God loves them and is ready to walk with them through what they are facing,’” Ross said.

“The mood of the producer quickly changed and he mumbled something about having to drop me from the show,” Ross added. “The secular world expects Christians to be mean to Keisha Castle-Hughes and all the young [people] who make grave mistakes with their lives. But to do so is to ignore the model Christ set for His followers. With gentleness and grace we are to point those who stumble toward redemption, forgiveness and a God of second chances.”

William Donohue, president of the Catholic League, said the secular media was deprived of the juicy story they were betting on when the Vatican and Catholic and Protestant groups throughout the world did not withdraw their support of The Nativity Story based on the lead character’s personal choices.

“On Nov. 24, UPI wrote that ‘Some Christian groups in the United States and Canada reportedly have been questioning Castle-Hughes’s ‘suitability’ to play the role of Mary,’” Donahue said in a Nov. 29 news release. “On the same day, the Times of London implied that the pope had subsequently refused to see the film (this was picked up by some U.S. media sources). On Nov. 26, the Detroit Free Press said that ‘Vatican officials’ were allegedly ‘not thrilled to have the issue cloud their enjoyment of the movie. So Castle-Hughes was dropped from the invitation list for the Vatican’s world premiere of the movie today.’

“As it turns out, none of this is true, as both USA Today and The New York Times accurately reported: The pope was embarking on his trip to Turkey and the girl was in Australia doing a movie,” Donahue said. “Despite what some think, Christians do not turn their backs on unwed mothers; they provide services for them.”

Jimmy Hester, who founded True Love Waits with Ross, voiced concern that Christians will miss an opportunity to explain to teenagers why Castle-Hughes’ situation is not ideal.

“This is just another illustration that our society does not truly value the biblical plan for sexuality,” Hester told BP. “Platforming this actress in this movie only serves as justification for sexually active teenagers and others who support such behavior, and makes it more difficult for young believers to hold up God's plan for sexual abstinence until marriage.”

An additional controversy surrounding the film is news that the city of Chicago has opted to ban advertisements for The Nativity Story at Christkindlmarket, a Christmas festival held in Daley Plaza for more than 10 years.

Officials are allowing a nativity display along with an Islamic crescent and a Jewish menorah, but they decided that clips from the film were too commercial and didn’t appeal to all faiths, according to the Chicago Tribune.

“This particular incident is about a movie studio aggressively marketing a movie and trying to sell tickets to that movie,” Veronica Resa, a spokeswoman for the mayor's office of special events, said.

But Ted Baehr, chairman of the Christian Film & Television Commission, said the decision amounted to a declaration of war on Christianity.

“This is an outrageous, despicable decision,” Baehr said in a Nov. 28 news release. “I’m absolutely shocked that at a Christmas festival they would not allow commercials people could see tonight on TV. It is just more hypocritical, leftwing political correctness where everything is OK except Christianity.”

Baehr added that Chicago officials would not show similar intolerance to minority groups or homosexual groups.--30--

Copyright © 2001 - 2006 Southern Baptist Convention, Baptist Press

City's Nativity scene has no Jesus, Mary or Joseph

W.Va. city's Xmas scene has no Jesus

By TOM BREENASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

ST. ALBANS, W.Va. -- Christ is missing from Christmas in this small town. The community's holiday display has a manger with shepherds, a guiding star, camels and a palm tree, but no baby Jesus, Mary or Joseph.

The parks superintendent said Jesus was left out because of concerns about the separation of church and state. But Mayor Dick Callaway said it was done for purely technical reasons: "It's not easy to put a light-up representation of a baby in a small manger scene, you know."

In recent years, some communities around the country have dropped nativity scenes after the displays were challenged as unconstitutional. Some communities have tried to head off legal problems by incorporating nonreligious symbols, or symbols of more than one faith, to avoid the appearance of endorsing one religion over another.

David Cunningham, parks superintendent in this town of 11,000, initially insisted St. Albans' display was not even technically a manger scene because he was concerned about possible lawsuits. But the mayor said such anxieties were unwarranted.

"We have a manger scene," the mayor said.

Around the country, only a few skirmishes in what some conservatives have called the "War on Christmas" have been reported this year so far.

Some retailers, including Wal-Mart, have returned to greeting customers with "Merry Christmas" after coming under attack last year for saying "Happy Holidays."

Two weeks ago, the Marine Reserves Toys for Tots program in Los Angeles overcame concerns about accepting a donation of 4,000 talking Jesus dolls that quote Bible verses by promising to make sure the dolls reach Christian children.

Some people are still scratching their heads over what happened in Chicago, where the movie studio behind "The Nativity Story" was dropped as a sponsor of a Christmas festival for fear of offending non-Christians.

In Wheeling, baby Jesus is represented in a manger scene at Olgebay Park's Winter Festival of Lights, which draws visitors from across the country.

"If anything, we get criticized for not having more examples of that type of thing," said J.C. Douglas Dalby, president of the Wheeling Park Commission.

©1996-2006 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

6 Imams Kicked Off Plane Gave Crew Several Reasons to Be Suspicious

6 Imams Kicked Off Plane Gave Crew Several Reasons to Be Suspicious

Saturday, December 02, 2006
By Cassie Carothers
Fox News

Six imams were kicked off a US Airways flight last week in Minneapolis for committing several acts of suspicious behavior, not just because they said their evening prayers before boarding the plane, a police report shows, contradicting earlier media reports.

US Airways manager Robby Taylor Davis told police three of the six imams had one-way only tickets and only one passenger checked luggage. He also said in the police report that most of the six requested seat-belt extensions typically used by obese people despite being thin.

Also, a passenger on the plane who speaks Arabic heard the group mention Saddam Hussein and criticize the United States' involvement in Iraq. The passenger, whose named was redacted from the police report, said he saw two of the men take seats in the front of the plane, two take seats in the middle, and two more in the back.

Click here to read the full police report.

Minneapolis police, along with U.S. Federal Air Marshals, decided the collective behavior of the group was suspicious enough to detain the men and question them.

Earlier reports only said the group had been seen praying loudly before the flight, and the group was removed after a passenger passed a note to a flight attendant bringing attention to the group, and did not include details on the other suspicious behavior of the imams.

The imams, who were returning from a religious conference, were detained and questioned before being released shortly thereafter.

"Pauline," a passenger on the flight who didn't want to give her real name for fear of her safety, said she thought the it was a stunt to garner media attention.

"They were so poised and ready to go to the press. By the time I arrived home from the airport ... they were already announcing on the news that they were being discriminated against," Pauline said on FOX News' Hannity and Colmes.

Click here to watch the full interview

In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, four airlines accused of breaking federal anti-discrimination laws settled with the government. Transportation Department investigations found the airlines had unlawfully removed passengers because of perceived ethnic or religious backgrounds.

The Transportation Department received a complaint about the US Airways incident on Monday from the Muslim Public Affairs Council, said spokesman Brian Turmail.

"We're going to now look into the matter," Turmail said.

The Homeland Security Department's Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties said last week that it was investigating the incident.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Muslims Seek Prayer Room at Airport

Muslims Seek Prayer Room at Airport

Dec 01 6:53 PM US/Eastern
By PATRICK CONDONA
ssociated Press Writer

MINNEAPOLIS

Airport officials said Friday they will consider setting aside a private area for prayer and meditation at the request of imams concerned about the removal of six Muslim clerics from a US Airways flight last week.

Steve Wareham, director of Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, said other airports have "meditation rooms" used for prayers or by passengers who simply need quiet time.

A group of Somali clerics met with airport officials Friday and said they would attract less attention if they had a private area for prayer. Devout Muslims pray five times daily, facing the holy city of Mecca.

"When we pray, we don't want a problem. We don't want what happened last week," said Abdulrehman Hersi, an imam at Darul-Quba mosque in Minneapolis, referring to six clerics who were barred from a US Airways flight in Minneapolis after drawing the concern of some passengers.

Airports in Nashville, Tenn.; Columbus, Ohio; and Fort Lauderdale, Fla., all advertise meditation rooms. Fort Lauderdale's is billed as "For travelers seeking a quiet time." All note they are nonsectarian.

The imams at the airport Friday drew a few stares as they laid down their prayer rugs and knelt on the hard rubber floor at the airport.

The clerics requested a meeting after both the US Airways incident and a recent flap over Muslim cabdrivers who didn't want to pick up passengers carrying alcohol.

"We are users of the airport, too, and we don't want to get into a situation where Muslims feel we are being marginalized at the airport," said Omar Jamal, executive director of the Somali Justice Advocacy Center in St. Paul and the meeting's organizer.

Airport officials will accept the group's invitation to visit a mosque, airport spokesman Pat Hogan said.

"I think there's a mutual recognition that it would be helpful for there to be a solid understanding," Hogan said.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

A new movement against radical Islam?

A new movement against radical Islam?
Modeled after anti-Communist efforts, activists plot strategy

Posted: December 2, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – Two conservative activists deeply involved in the anti-communism movement of the past are planning a broad strategy of re-creating those efforts in a new mass movement to fight radical Islam.

Jack Wheeler, a strategist credited with formulating "the Reagan Doctrine" that helped bring down the Soviet Empire, and Steve Baldwin, a former California legislator and the executive director of the Council for National Policy, have teamed up for what they describe as the creation of an "Anti-Islamofascism Movement."

"One cannot write the history of the Cold War without acknowledging the key role played by the American Anti-Communist Movement," they write in a memo to conservative leaders. "It was a broad movement involving many different organizations that, for decades, kept its focus on the defeat of the Soviet Empire. And it succeeded."

Wheeler and Baldwin say anti-communism was "the defining issue that brought hundreds of thousands of people into the conservative movement in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. There was a sense that this movement had to be successful if not only America but Western Civilization itself were to survive."

They say the current war of global conquest being waged by Islamofascists will be an even tougher fight than the battle that focused on the Soviet Union.

"But we don't seem to be prepared for this war," they write. "Unlike the movement created during the Cold War, there doesn't seem to be much of an infrastructure to combat Islamofascism."

The agenda for such a movement should include the following activities and efforts, they say:

investigate radical mosques

support anti-Islamofascist freedom fighters

thwart attempts to impose Sharia law

form an anti-Islamofascist publishing network

create an anti-Islamofascist portal on the Internet

establish an anti-Islamofascist speakers bureau

wage an ideological assault on Islamofascism

support efforts to evangelize Muslims in Europe and the Middle East

create a global anti-Islamofascist coalition

reframe the illegal immigration issue as one of national security

end dependence on foreign oil that's funding the Islamofascists.

Planning meetings through regular teleconferencing are already underway. There is a new secure Internet forum where ideas are being exchanged. There is also an e-mail address where those interested in the "movement" can make their intention known – 910-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. Those wishing to participate in the forum are asked to provide some information about their own background, interests and skills so they can be directed to specific project areas. Additional information is available at the 910blog.

"This needs to be done in order to preserve both America and Western Civilization," Wheeler and Baldwin say. "Without the anti-Communist movement, it's likely we would still be in the midst of the Cold War today. Wise men and women rose up to the challenge and created a movement that was very much opposed by the existing political and media establishment. But we won. Then we all went to sleep."

Woman must be informed of unborn child's pain?

Woman must be informed of unborn child's pain?
House to vote on bill that requires giving facts before allowing abortion

Posted: December 2, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com


The Christian Medical Association is urging passage of a federal bill to inform women considering an abortion of potential pain their babies can experience after 20 weeks of development.

"One thing both sides of this issue should be able to agree upon is that women should be fully informed about the medical science concerning their developing babies," said Dr. David Stevens, CEO of the 17,000-member association.

The House is expected to vote on the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, H.R. 6099, next week.

Stevens said the scientific findings in the measure are "clear and compelling."

"Women deserve to know exactly what an abortion involves for their baby," he said. "Imagine the heartbreak a woman would experience after being led to believe that her 22-week developing baby is simply a 'blob of tissue' only to learn after an abortion that her baby likely experienced excruciating pain. This bill sets the record straight and makes sure women are provided with the facts."

The bill's findings – reflecting testimony by scientific experts, including Drs. Kanwdfbet S. Anand and Jeanne Wright – note that at least by 20 weeks after fertilization, an unborn child has the physical structures necessary to experience pain.

"There is substantial evidence that by 20 weeks after fertilization, unborn children draw away from certain stimuli in a manner which in an infant or an adult would be interpreted as a response to pain," a draft of the bill states.

Anesthesia, the experts point out, routinely is administered to unborn children who have developed 20 weeks or more after fertilization and undergo prenatal surgery.

"There is substantial evidence that the abortion methods most commonly used 20 weeks or more after fertilization cause substantial pain to an unborn child, whether by dismemberment, poisoning, penetrating or crushing the skull, or other methods," the bill states.

Dr. Gene Rudd, an obstetrician with the CMA, noted the bill cites laws protecting animals from inhumane treatment, while a developing human has no such protections.

"What does this say about our blindness to the humanity of our developing babies?" he asked.

Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., issued a statement yesterday in support of the bill, saying he intends to "seek unanimous consent that the Senate take up and pass this critical piece of legislation."

Brownback is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights.

Child-care center warned over 'loving Jesus' songs

Child-care center warned over 'loving Jesus' songs

Overzealous bureaucrat threatens loss of funding
to moms, tots unless group becomes 'gay'-inclusive

Posted: December 2, 2006
6:25 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

A North London mother and toddlers' group is breathing easier– but still upset – after the local government council rebuked a bureaucrat who threatened to withhold funding unless songs about loving Jesus were dropped from daily activities and the organization changed its constitution to reflect greater inclusiveness towards gay families.

Gosia Shannon, a Polish emigree, was alerted by a letter sent this week, that the Polish and Eastern European Christian Family Center in Wood Green, North London, that she started earlier this year, would no longer be eligible for government funding unless it agreed to it remaining 'non-religious' in the future, the London Daily Mail reported.

The drop-in center serves 250 families, mostly Polish immigrant women and their young children, offering the opportunity for newcomers to the UK to make friends and learn about nurseries and schools. In its short time in existence, the program has become so popular that regular attenders must take turns each week since Shannon's facility will only hold 40 people.

Children play with toys and participate in "circle time" where they sing nursery rhymes as well as traditional Polish Christian songs like "Our Jesus, We Love You." Many of the songs are provided by parents who bring in CDs of music their familes sing at home.

"We sing Christian and non-Christian songs," said Shannon.

"We are simply reflecting the culture of the people who attend. We want our children to be brought up in the Christian faith and to go to Catholic schools where they will sing Christian songs every day. We have Christian songs at home and families want their children to learn them. This is part of our inheritance and we want to be able to reflect our culture."

The center operates with approximately $14,000 in annual funding from the UK's Sure Start program – similar to Head Start in the U.S. – and is designed to support pre-school children and their families in deprived areas. The funding is distributed through the Haringey Council.
Enter Debbie Biss, area manager for Haringey Sure Start program's Noel Park Children's Center.

In a letter, dated Dec. 1, Biss wrote to the group to complain about their singing Christian songs.

"We expect all our services to be inclusive and without religious content, so I was concerned to learn that Gosia [Shannon] leads the singing of a song about loving Jesus in every session," she wrote. "I asked Gosia to leave this song out in future, but Gosia has refused to do so."

Biss warned the center's committee that she would recommend funding be terminated at the end of the month unless it agreed that all future activities would be "strictly of a non-religious nature."

Further, the committee was told it must amend its constitution to reflect a greater inclusion of 'gay' families and that it should consider dropping "Christian" from the name of the group. It "implies that your activities are religious in nature" – an implication, Biss said, that could affect future funding.

An angry Shannon vowed to fight the imposition of secularism on her group, most of whom are Catholic.

"It's ridiculous and it's unacceptable. I don't understand this political correctness," she said.

"They're trying to impose their own policies on a community that has its own values. It's saying 'we can support the community without their values.' If we don't have the funds, I would have to stop running the group and people would have nowhere to go. But I am determined not to give up and will fight on."

Further, Shannon noted, she had welcomed the one lesbian couple who visited the center.
"We don't promote homosexuality but we welcome homosexuals. They are trying to impose their own culture on us, not the culture the community wants. Christianity is part of who we are," she told the London Times.

A day after Biss sent her letter, Shannon got a reprieve. The Haringey Council announced that the letter from Biss had been withdrawn.

"It was not appropriate for this officer to be writing such a letter linking funding with the issues mentioned in the letter," a spokesman said. "We have contacted this group asking them to disregard the letter and invited them to meet a senior officer to discuss the funding of their group."

Shannon's experience may be only the tip of the iceberg as new legislation outlawing discrimination goes into effect in 2007. Beginning in April, it will be illegal for religious groups to discriminate against homosexuals or transsexuals when providing goods and services.

Catholic and Anglican agencies have indicated they may be forced to close their adoption agencies, youth clubs and hospice, and Christian bed-and-breakfast owners say they would shut down before allowing homosexual couples to sleep together in their houses.

Conservative black church groups have had the strongest reaction, taking out a full page advertisement in the London Times in protest.

Alfred Williams, one of the pentecostal leaders behind the ad, said: "People think it is better to die than to sin against their God. There will be a spontaneous reaction. There will be civil disobedience."

Backlash Causes Airline to 'Back Peddle' on Decision re: Employee's Wearing of Cross

Backlash Causes Airline to 'Back Peddle' on Decision re: Employee's Wearing of Cross

By Pat Centner

(AgapePress) - British Airways (BA) recently announced that it would again review its dress code policy after initially ruling that one of its employees could not wear a cross to work because it violated the dress code.

Back in October, Nadia Eweida, a check-in worker, was told that she would have to either remove her cross or hide it beneath a scarf. Eweida, a Coptic Christian, refused and was ultimately sent home. She was also placed on unpaid leave.

In comments to The Daily Mail, Eweida maintained that BA only discriminates against Christians in the wearing of religious items. "British Airways permits Muslims to wear a headscarf, Sikhs to wear a turban, and other faiths religious apparel," she said. "I will not hide my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ."

Eweida filed an appeal with the airline, but lost. She was once again told that she could not wear a cross that was fully visible to others. Eweida's plight soon became public, and British Airlines experienced a backlash of gigantic proportions. Statements and articles declaring religious discrimination were lodged by Christians and clergy worldwide. According to VirtueOnline, even the British Parliament became involved as close to 100 members protested on behalf of Eweida.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, responded to the airline's decision by reiterating a statement he had made early in the Eweida controversy that it is "absolutely basic that people of any faith should have the right to display the signs of their faith commitment in public." He elaborated further, said Christian Today, by expressing confusion at the airline's decision, saying he couldn't discern whether they were simply talking about "regulations," or whether they were claiming that the cross itself is a source of offense.

"Now if BA is really saying or implying that the wearing of a cross in public is a source of offense," the archbishop said, "then I regard that as deeply offensive .... If they're saying that it's to do with matters of health and safety, ... I would ask them to look very seriously at this, given the enormous reaction of dismay that's been caused in the Christian community."

This controversy has sparked great interest by Christians worldwide, who are encountering ever-increasing religious persecution. Faith McDonnell of the Institute on Religion and Democracy was right on target when she expressed the importance that wearing a cross holds, in particular for Christians living in non-Western countries who are willing to be publicly identified as followers of Christ in spite of persecution and death.

The symbolism of wearing the cross, said McDonnell, "is not a fashion statement; it is a faith statement."

Pat Centner, an occasional contributor to AgapePress, is a former staff writer for AFA Journal, a publication of the American Family Association.

© 2006 AgapePress all rights reserved.

Friday, December 1, 2006

Income drops as Christians publicize 'gay' Wal-Mart

Income drops as Christians publicize 'gay' Wal-Mart
'Information explosion' about support for homosexuals targeted retailer

Posted: December 1, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

Sheriff's deputies called when group lobbies Wal-Mart customers to avoid retailer's "gay" 'agenda
A number of reports have documented a slight decline in Wal-Mart's income for Black Friday, the big sales day right after Thanksgiving, while other retailers were reporting increases, and activists who staged an "information explosion" to tell customers about the corporation's developing support for the "gay" agenda were pleased.

"Nationally, we heard from Wal-Mart's own mouth that its sales during the month of November – including Black Friday – fell 0.1 percent below expectations," said Rev. Flip Benham, who worked to coordinate sign-carrying volunteers in front of Wal-Marts across the nation under the Operation Save Wal-Mart banner.

"According to one local television station in Charlotte, N.C., all stores during the Thanksgiving holidays recorded record increases over sales in previous years – all stores that is, with the exception of Wal-Mart," he said. "It recorded a decrease in sales…"

"Businesses everywhere were recording record sales, yet for America's largest retailer, things are beginning to look very bleak indeed," he said. One competitor, Target, estimated increases for the month of 4-7 percent.

Benham reported that hundreds of Christian families had gathered at Wal-Mart stores across the country to "bring the Gospel of Christ to the very gates of hell."

He said hundreds of thousands of pieces of literature were passed out to customers arriving at Wal-Marts, and "many were astonished to find how deeply Wal-Mart had fallen from its biblical principles."

"The Church came 'out of the closet' to attempt to save an old friend. Wal-Mart, a store built upon biblical principles and under the tutelage of Sam Walton, has become an enemy of God," he said.

He suggested if Walton still were alive today, "he would most assuredly have shut down all 4,900 Wal-Mart stories in the continental United States. The reason? Wal-Mart has succumbed to the demands of the radical homosexual agenda and the abortion industry.

"Rather than honoring God, this once great corporation is besmirching His Name and killing His children. Sam Walton would never have allowed this," said Benham, who also works with the Operation Save America campaign.

Another report on activities involving Wal-Mart came from Church of the Divide, which showed up at a Placerville, Calif., Wal-Mart with signs reading: "Wal-Mart Supports Sodomy" and "Wal-mart Gives $60k to Gay Group."

The church reported that store officials insisted they leave the property, and then called a sheriff's deputy who asked members to move to an area that did not block the entrance.

Then they passed out flyers highlighting Wal-Mart's decision to join the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce and its $60,000 donation to Out & Equal, a homosexual lobbying organization.

"We were able to witness to a few open individuals and we pray that God would convict the hearts of those lost souls and that the seeds which were planted would grow and bear much fruit," the church report said.

Several business magazines also reported that traffic on the company's website was disrupted for much of the day. Attempts to open the Walmart.com site resulted in blank pages, delays or other problems early in the day, and by later, visitors were told to come back later.

Company officials said it was because of high traffic.

The information campaign was done because of the company's support for the "gay" agenda, and despite the fact the company said it was changing policy, a move that convinced the American Family Association to cancel its request for a boycott just days before the holiday.

Company spokeswoman Mona Williams had told WND the change will have the company evaluating on a case-by-case basis its support for outside groups. She said the change was prompted by "concerns and questions" from the company's employees and customers alike.

"As a result we agreed we needed to be more thoughtful in how we make our contributions. We will not make corporate contributions to support or oppose highly controversial issues," Williams told WND.

The AFA, which earlier had asked its millions of constituents to support the post-Thanksgiving boycott, said the company had contacted AFA with word of its change.

But Benham objected, noting Wal-Mart remained a "member" of the NGLCC, and still dispenses the Plan B abortion pill. It also has not apologized for its actions and not fired a homosexual marketing agency, he said.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research Backers Down 39 Votes, Starting Lobbying

Embryonic Stem Cell Research Backers Down 39 Votes, Starting Lobbying

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
December 1, 2006

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Supporters of a measure to force taxpayers to fund embryonic stem cell research are short of the two-thirds needed to overturn a likely second presidential veto by at least 39 votes in the House. Lawmakers pushing the bill are slated to meet next week to begin coordinating their lobbying strategy to get those votes.

As LifeNews.com previously reported, leading embryonic stem cell research funding backers can't agree on whether there are enough votes in the House and Senate to override another veto from President Bush.

Bush vetoed the previous funding bill in July and the House voted 235-193 in favor of overriding the veto with 5 abstentions, but the vote was 51 short of the two-thirds necessary to override it. The Senate voted for the bill 63-37, which was four votes short of being able to override a veto.

The House is the major obstacle as they appears to be just enough votes on the Senate side for an override.

Looking at the House vote, 51 Republicans backed the funding measure and, of those, 15 lost their re-election bids or retired. Twelve of the 15 Republicans lost to Democrats and the Hotline political newsletter reports that just two of the three other Republicans will back the bill.

Democrats picked up 14 seats in the mid-term elections from Republicans who voted against the measure. Though a couple of the new Democrats campaigned on opposition to abortion, that may not translate into votes against embryonic stem cell research funding.

Assuming all of the new Democrats will support the measure, that the five abstaining members last time vote for the override, and that the three Republicans replacing retired members vote for the override as well, supporters of the bill have 251 votes for an override.

That still leaves them 39 votes short of enough to overturn the president's veto, assuming all members vote on the veto override.

The Hotline reports that Reps. Mike Castle, a Delaware Republican, and Diana DeGette, a Colorado Democrat, the two leading sponsors of the House funding measure, are preparing to coordinate their legislative strategy to find those 39 votes.

According to newsletter, they plan to rely on claims that stem cell research was popular with voters in the 2006 elections. They will likely target 10 moderate Republicans who voted no and members in districts with large medical facilities, especially in California.

However, polls show that stem cell research wasn't an issue that helped backers of taxpayer funding of it. In fact one survey showed the issue of stem cell research helped a pro-life candidate.

A post-election poll conducted by Fox News finds that, in the Missouri Senate race, which was dominated by embryonic stem cell research, neither the issue nor ads from actor Michael J. Fox helped Claire McCaskill. In fact, the ads benefited pro-life Sen. Jim Talent, who opposed taxpayer funding of the controversial science.

Fox News asked Missouri voters whether the embryonic stem cell research ad campaign made voters more or less likely to vote for McCaskill, who Fox endorsed in the commercials.

A whopping 71 percent said the ads made "No difference" in their vote.

Only 7 percent said the ads made them more likely to support McCaskill but a larger group of voters, 18 percent, said Fox's commercials made them less likely to support her.

Of those voters who said it made them less likely to vote for her some 94 percent ended up supporting pro-life Sen. Jim Talent, who opposed embryonic stem cell research funding.

The Fox News poll also found that the issue of stem cell research in general didn't provide any advantage to McCaskill.

Almost half of voters said embryonic stem cell research made no difference in how they voted.

And among the 25 percent who said the issue was extremely important to their vote, 59 percent favored Talent while just 39 percent backed McCaskill. That means opponents of the research, which involves the destruction of human life, were more energized than its supporters.

Copyright © 2003-2006 LifeNews.com.
All rights reserved.

The Sin of Tolerance. From The Billy Graham Association

The Sin of Tolerance

From The Billy Graham Association

At home and abroad, the American people plead for broad-mindedness, tolerance and charity. Abroad, our ambassadors use all of their powers to influence warring parties to come to the conference table in a spirit of given and take.

There is a sense in which the world needs broad-mindedness and tolerance; and certainly we all need understanding and charity. However, in the realm of intolerance in certain areas. In some things Christ was the most tolerant, broad-minded Man that ever lived - but in other things He was one of the most intolerant of men.

Tolerance Can Become Too Stretched

One of the pet words of this age is 'tolerance.' It is a good word, but we have tried to stretch it over too great an area of life. We have applied it, too often, where it does not belong. The word 'tolerant' means 'liberal,' 'broad-minded,' 'willing to put up with beliefs opposed to one's convictions' and 'the allowance of something not wholly approved.'

Tolerance, in one sense, implies the compromise of one's convictions, a yielding of ground upon important issues. Hence, over tolerance in moral issues has made us soft, flabby and devoid of convictions.

We have become tolerant about divorce; we have become tolerant about the use of alcohol; we have become tolerant about delinquency; we have become tolerant about wickedness in high places; we have become tolerant about immorality; we have become tolerant about crime and we have become tolerant about godlessness.

In a book about what prominent people believe, sixty out of a hundred did not even mention God, and only eleven out of one hundred mentioned Jesus. There was a manifest tolerance toward soft character and broad-mindedness about morals, characteristic of our day. We have been sapped of convictions, drained of our beliefs and bereft of our faith.

The sciences, however, are narrow-minded. There is no room for careless broad-mindedness in the laboratory. Water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit at sea level. It is never 100 degrees or 189 degrees, but always 212. Water freezes at 32 degrees; it is never 23 degrees or 31.

Objects heavier than air always are attracted to the center of the earth. The always go down, never up. I know this is narrow, but the Law of Gravity decrees it so, and science is very narrow.

Mathematics is also very narrow-minded. The sum of two plus two is four, never three and a half. That seems very narrow, but arithmetic is not broad-minded. Geometry is also narrow-minded. It says that a straight line is the shortest distance between two points on a plane. That seems very dogmatic and narrow-minded, but geometry is intolerant.

A compass is narrow-minded: it always points to the magnetic north. It seems that it is very narrow-minded. If it were, ships at sea and planes in the air would be in danger.

If you should ask a man the direction to New York City and he said, 'Oh, just take any road you wish, they all lead there,' you would question either his sanity or his truthfulness. Nevertheless, we have somehow gotten it into our minds that 'all roads lead to heaven.' You hear people say, 'Do your best,' 'Be honest,' and 'Be sincere - and you will make it to heaven all right.'

But Jesus Christ, who journeyed from heaven to earth and back to heaven again, who knew the way better than anyone who ever lived, said, 'Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it' (Matthew 7:13-14).

Jesus Was Narrow About The Way of Salvation

He plainly pointed out that there are two roads in life. One is broad - lacking in faith, convictions and morals. It is the easy, popular, careless way. It is the way of the crowd, the way of the majority, the way of the world. He said, 'There are many who go in by it.' But He pointed out that this road, easy though it is, popular though it may be, heavily traveled though it is, leads to destruction. And in loving, compassionate intolerance He says 'Enter by the narrow gate....Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life.'

His was the intolerance of a pilot who maneuvers his plane though the storm, realizing that a single error, just one flash of broad-mindedness, might bring disaster to all those passengers on the plane.

While flying from Korea to Japan, we ran through a rough snowstorm. When we arrived over the airport in Tokyo, the ceiling and visibility were almost zero. The pilot had to make an instrument landing. I sat up in the cockpit with the pilot and watched him sweat it out as he was brought in by ground control approach. A man in the tower at the airport talked us in.

I did not want these men to be broad-minded. I knew that our lived depended on it. Just so, when we come in for the landing in the great airport in heaven, I don't want any broad-mindedness. I want to come in on the beam, and even though I may be considered narrow here, I want to be sure of a safe landing there.

Christ was so intolerant of our lost estate that He left His lofty throne in the heavenlies, took on Himself the form of man, suffered at the hands of evil men and died on a cruel Cross of shame to purchase our redemption. So serious was our plight that He could not look upon it lightly. With the love that was His, He could not be broad-minded about a world held captive by its lusts, its appetites and its sins.

Having paid such a fabulous price, He could not be tolerant about men and women's indifference toward Him and the redemption He had wrought. He said, 'He who is not with Me is against Me (Matthew 12:30). He also said, 'He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him' (John 3:36).

Christ spoke of two roads, two kingdoms, two masters, two rewards and two eternities. And He said, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me' (John 14:6). We have the power to choose whom we will serve, but the alternative to choosing Christ brings certain destruction. Christ said that! The broad, wide, easy, popular way leads to death and destruction. Only the way of the Cross leads home.

Peter was reflecting Christ's teaching when he said, 'Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name (than Jesus Christ) under heaven given among men by which we must be saved' (Acts 4:12). Paul taught the same: 'For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus' (1 Timothy 2:5).

The popular, tolerant attitude toward the Gospel of Christ is like a person going to watch the Los Angeles Dodgers and the Atlanta Braves play a baseball game and rooting for both sides. It would be impossible for an individual who has no loyalty to a particular team to really get into the game.

Baseball fans are very intolerant in both Atlanta and Los Angeles. If you would cheer for both sides in Los Angeles or in Atlanta, someone would yell, 'Hey, you, make up your mind who you're for.'

Christ said, 'You cannot serve God and mammon.... No one can serve two masters' (Matthew 6:24). One of the sins of this age is the sin of broad-mindedness. We need more people who will step out and say unashamedly, 'As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord' (Joshua 24:15).

Jesus Was Intolerant Toward Hypocrisy

He pronounced more 'woes' on the Pharisees than on any other sect because they were given to outward piety, but inside they were a sham. 'Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!' He said, 'For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence' (Matthew 23:25).

A counterfeit Christian, single-handedly, can do more to retard the progress of the church than a dozen saints can do to move forward it. That is why Jesus was so intolerant with sham!

A great church leader said that the greatest need in the church today is for church members to live what they profess.

In the book Pilgrim's Progress, Formality and Hypocrisy came tumbling over the wall into Christian's path. They were going to Mount Zion and were searching for a short-cut. When they came to the hill called Difficulty, they shrank back. The hill was steep and high, and nearby were two roads leading downward into an enticing valley.

The name of the one road was Danger; the name of the other was Destruction. Formality and Hypocrisy chose the easy roads, which led them into impassable woods and swamps, and they were head of no more.

Sham's only reward is everlasting destruction. The hypocrite has nothing but the contempt of his or her neighbors and the judgment of God hereafter. That is why Jesus said, 'Do not be like the hypocrites' (Matthew 6:16).

Jesus Was Intolerant Toward Selfishness

He said, 'If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself' (Luke 9:23). Self-centeredness is the basic cause of much of our distress in life. Hypochondria, a mental disorder which is accompanied by melancholy and depression, is often caused by self-pity and self-centeredness.

Most of us suffer from spiritual nearsightedness. Our interests and our energies are too often focused upon ourselves.

Jesus was intolerant with selfishness. He underscored the fact that His disciples were to live outflowingly rather than selfishly. To the rich young ruler He said, 'If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.....'(Matthew 19:21). It wasn't the giving of his goods that Jesus demanded, but his release from selfishness and its devastating effects on his personality and life.

He was intolerant of selfishness when He said. 'For whoever desires to save his life shall lose it, and whoever loses his life for My sake will find it' (Matthew 16:25). The 'life' which Jesus urges us to lose is the selfishness that lives within us, the old nature of sin that is in conflict with God. Peter, James and John left their nets, but Jesus did not object to nets as such; it was the selfish living they symbolized that He wanted them to forsake. Matthew left the 'custom seat,' a political job, to follow Christ. But Jesus did not object to a political career as such; it was the selfish quality of living which it represented that He wanted Matthew to forsake.

So, in your life and in mine, 'self' must be crucified and Christ enthroned. He was intolerant of any other way, for He knew that selfishness and the Spirit of God cannot exist together.

Jesus Was Intolerant Toward Sin

He was tolerant toward the sinner, but intolerant toward the evil which enslaves the sinner. To the adulteress He said, 'Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more (John 8:11). He forgave her because He loved her; but He condemned her sin because He loathed it with a holy hatred.

God has always been intolerant toward sin! His Word says: 'Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes. Cease to do evil....'(Isaiah 1:16).'

Awake to righteousness, and do not sin' (1 Corinthians 15:34). "Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts....(Isaiah 55:7).

Christ was so intolerant toward sin that He died on the cross to free men and women from its power. 'For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life' (John 3:16). Sin lies at the root of most of society's difficulties today. Whatever separates a person from God disunites that person from others. The world problem will never be solved until the question of sin is settled.

But the Cross is God's answer to sin. To all who will receive the blessed news of salvation through Christ, it crosses out - cancels forever - sin's power.

Forest rangers know the value of the 'burn-back' in fighting forest fires. To save an area from uncontrolled fire, they carefully burn away the trees and shrubs to create a safety barrier. When the forest fire reaches that burned-out spot, plants and animals standing inside the area protected by the burn-back are safe from the flames. Fire is thus fought by fire.

Calvary was a colossal fighting of fire by fire. Christ, taking on Himself all of our sins, allowed the fire of sin's judgment to fall upon Him. The area around the Cross has become a place of refuge for all who would escape the judgment of sin. Take your place with Him at the Cross; stand by the Cross; yield your life to Him who redeemed you on the Cross, and the fire of sin's judgment can never touch you.

God is intolerant toward sin. That intolerance sent His Son to die for us. He has said 'that whoever believes in Him shall not perish.' The clear implication is that those who refuse to believe in Him will be eternally lost. Come to Christ today, while His Spirit is speaking to your heart!

FIRST-PERSON: 'The Nativity Story' -- in season and on message

FIRST-PERSON: 'The Nativity Story' -- in season and on message

Dec 1, 2006
By R. Albert Mohler Jr.
Baptist Press

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (BP)--My family and I attended a media screening for The Nativity Story the other night. The movie is in season and on message. In other words, the movie faithfully presents the main thrust of the Christmas story. That is no small achievement.

The movie, directed by Catherine Hardwicke, takes some liberties with the biblical accounts found in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. Nevertheless, the invented scenes and dialogue do not distract from the biblical storyline. The screenplay by Mike Rich presents key truths such as the virgin conception and deity of Jesus with unambiguous clarity and artistic force.

The Gospel accounts are the starting point for any telling of the story, of course. At the same time, there is no comprehensive biblical narrative that fills in every detail. We are left with huge questions. Joseph is described in the New Testament merely as a "righteous man" who believed God and obeyed angelic visions. When Mary is found to be "with child," Joseph decides to put her away privately, rather than to defend his own honor through a public accusation against his betrothed bride. Beyond these facts, we know little of Joseph the carpenter. Yet, as a character in this movie, Joseph is almost as developed as the character of Mary.

The movie presents invented dialogue and situations including a focus upon Mary's parents and family, the village of Nazareth, the emergence of Joseph, and Mary's relationship with her cousin Elizabeth, mother of John the Baptist.

Invented scenes include an imagined version of the pilgrimage to Bethlehem (including a river crossing scene, complete with a threatening snake) and representations of the brutal oppression of the Jews by King Herod the Great -- a character who can hardly be imagined as more evil than he actually was. The film also attempts to convey the messianic hopes of the Jewish people, suffering under multiple levels of oppression.

Rich, who wrote the script, explained his decision to expand the story: "The only way to tell the story was to try and take that foundation in Matthew and Luke and expand upon it, while at the same time being very faithful to the spirit, tone and content of those Gospels." The same is basically true of nativity plays presented in churches across America.

The most extravagant display of that creativity involves the Magi. As presented in the movie, the Magi provide historical context, important dialogue and a degree of comic relief. Yet, these men are presented in a believable manner, without farce. Of course, the Gospel of Matthew never specifies a number of the Magi (stipulating only the three gifts), much less their names. The movie simply assumes the tradition of three Magi named Gaspar, Melchior, and Balthasar -- a European tradition traceable only to the seventh century.

In order to present the Magi in Bethlehem the night of Jesus' birth, the movie suggests that these wise men from the East had seen the astronomical event of the star in the making and had left for Bethlehem months before Christ's birth. In any event, the Magi provide some of the most important Christological material found in the film.

When it comes to the virgin birth, the divinity and the saving mission of the Christ Child, the movie never blinks. Cinematographers may find fault with the presentation of the angels and the voice of God, but I have the sense that where the director had to choose between accuracy and artistry, accuracy often won. For that decision Christians should be thankful.

The film succeeds in presenting the humanity of the central characters and in building a sense of expectancy. There is little suspense in the movie, of course. We know the story.

Christian parents will want to discuss the movie with their children. Which parts of the movie can be traced to which biblical texts? Were the other parts of the movie faithful to the main storyline? How much of what Christians think they know about the nativity story is actually in the Bible at all?

Should the story of Jesus be reduced to film? That question is not as easily dismissed as some might think. Nevertheless, "The Nativity Story" is the first major Hollywood studio film in many years to deal with a biblical story. In fact, World magazine reviewer Steve Beard reports that "The Nativity Story" is the first such release from a major studio since "Ben Hur" and "The Ten Commandments."

So, Hollywood has produced a major film with a national release that straightforwardly presents the central themes and events of the biblical accounts of Christ's birth. We should not let that fact pass without notice.
--30--
This was adapted from R. Albert Mohler Jr.'s weblog at www.albertmohler.com.
Mohler is president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.
For more articles and resources by Mohler, and for information on The Albert Mohler Program, visit www.albertmohler.com.

SONICFLOOd missions tour ends; response just beginning

SONICFLOOd missions tour ends; response just beginning

Dec 1, 2006
By Ashley Mitchell
Baptist Press

HAMPTON, Va. (BP)--With a final benediction prayer, the contemporary Christian band SONICFLOOd wrapped up their 57-city, missions-focused tour in November in Hampton, Va.

More than 26,000 students and young people attended SONICFLOOd concerts during the 11-week national tour, which included stops in 23 states and Canada. Many of them made decisions to follow Christ in missions involvement.

Twelve-year-old Maddie Burnette (right), raises her hands in worship during a SONICFLOOd concert at Grove Avenue Baptist Church in Richmond, Va. Many young people attending the band’s recent concerts gave their lives to Christ or committed themselves to exploring mission service. Photo courtesy of IMB

To move students toward missions and teach them about God’s desire to reach all nations, SONICFLOOd partnered with the Southern Baptist International Mission Board to create a concert event that was more of an interactive experience than a musical performance. The show featured plenty of songs, but also incorporated videos and images of mission work, multimedia presentations, testimonies of students working abroad and specific opportunities for mission service.

“We've always been eager to travel the world and sing of God's love, but I believe God is bringing us into a deeper place of expectancy to see His wonders as we worship Him,” said Rick Heil, SONICFLOOd’s lead singer.

Before the tour, Heil said he hoped it would inspire students to think about their faith and examine what it means to follow Christ. Three months later, that hope has turned into a reality for some students.

Out of more than 1,000 decision cards turned in during the tour, 58 students reported coming to know Christ as a result of the concerts. Another 423 made public decisions to pursue God’s call to missions. Hundreds of students expressed how deeply the event changed their lives.

“My decision to receive the Lord as my Savior really came out tonight because of stories, songs and speakers that I heard,” one high school student wrote. “I can feel Jesus Christ changing my heart to believe in Jesus and never give up. I have been saved!”

Another student said, “Something about this worship has opened my heart. It has really encouraged me to think about missions.”

Heil noted that while many young people surrendered to Jesus during the tour, it can’t end there.

“If we are truly God's people we will have His heart of compassion and desire everyone to enjoy the hope we have in Jesus. Jesus brings life. He brings love, and that is what every heart is hungry for,” he said.

Mike Lopez, director of student mobilization for the International Mission Board, said it has been amazing to watch God work through the concerts.

“Our main objective for the SONICFLOOd tour was to mobilize students for international missions service,” Lopez said. “God blessed this effort in many ways. As SONICFLOOd led us in the worship of God, God began to work in people’s hearts. As people watched the videos, heard the testimonies and learned about global needs, they began to respond.”

Missions is a way to get God's people out of their comfort zones and into an atmosphere that promotes spiritual growth, Heil explained. “We are commanded by the Lord to take the message of Jesus to everyone, and if we love Him we will keep His commands,” he said.

“When He is worshiped and glorified, He begins to bring people to a realization of His purpose and plan for all nations to have a relationship with Him,” Lopez said.

SONICFLOOd’s music echoes this mentality, as in the song “Cry Holy”:

“Let the earth rejoice, Singing with one voice,

Let the people cry ‘Holy, holy Lord’

Every creature sing praises to the King

All creation cry ‘Holy is the Lord.’”
--30--
To explore more about getting involved in missions, go to www.thetask.org. To visit the SONICFLOOd website, go to www.sonicflood.com.

MARRIAGE DIGEST: Md. Supreme Court to hear 'gay marriage' case; Canadian Parliament to debate marriage this month

MARRIAGE DIGEST: Md. Supreme Court to hear 'gay marriage' case; Canadian Parliament to debate marriage this month

Dec 1, 2006
By Michael Foust
Baptist Press

ANNAPOLIS, Md. (BP)--For a few months at least, the epicenter of the nationwide legal debate over "gay marriage" will reside in Maryland.

The state's highest court will hear oral arguments Monday, Dec. 4, in a case that could make the Old Line State the second in America to legalize "gay marriage." Similar cases are pending before the California and Connecticut Supreme Courts, although neither body has decided whether it even will take up the cases.

"Gay marriage" supporters in Maryland won on the trial court level in January, when Judge M. Brooke Murdock ruled that a 1973 law defining marriage as being between one man and one woman violates the Maryland constitution's Equal Rights Amendment. She ordered "gay marriage" to be legalized, although her ruling was stayed pending an emergency appeal to the Maryland Court of Appeals, the highest court in the state.

Supporters of "gay marriage" hope the Maryland court ends a streak of losses. This year alone, supreme courts in New York, Washington state and New Jersey ruled that there is no constitutional right to "gay marriage."

Owen M. Taylor, an Annapolis attorney, told The Gazette newspaper in Maryland that the issue should be left up to the state legislature. Taylor filed a brief supporting the current law on behalf of the American Center for Law and Justice.

"There’s an element in [Murdock's] decision that is not judicial in nature. It’s social in nature, and those issues are better left to a legislature," Taylor said. "The law as written ... requires no interpretation. The court ought to uphold it."

Following Murdock's ruling, supporters of natural, traditional marriage introduced a constitutional marriage amendment in the legislature, although Democrats blocked it and prevented it from getting a floor vote in the House of Delegates, The Gazette reported.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of nine homosexual couples.

The Connecticut case was appealed to that state's highest court on Nov. 29 by the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, which lost at the trial level.

The California case, which involves a host of liberal and homosexual organizations, was filed with the state Supreme Court Nov. 13. That case involves lawsuits by the city of San Francisco as well as Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Center for Lesbian Rights. They won at the trial court but lost at the appeals court level.

N.J. CONSERVATIVES PROPOSE ALTERNATIVES -- New Jersey conservatives held a press conference Nov. 27 where they proposed two alternatives to a state Supreme Court ruling that ordered the legislature either to legalize "gay marriage" or Vermont-style civil unions.

The first alternative is a constitutional marriage amendment, which likely faces an uphill climb in the legislature. If passed it would go before voters for approval.

The second alternative, according to The Star-Ledger newspaper, is an "Equal Benefits Bill" that would grant marriage benefits to a host of relationships -- for instance, a brother and a sister who share financial responsibilities. It also would include same-sex couples but would not be exclusive to them.

"There are many families who cannot have access to the benefits of marriage because their living arrangements are outside the realm of marriage," Len Deo, president of the New Jersey Family Policy Council, said, according to the Star-Ledger. "For example, two elderly women who are domiciled together, or perhaps a grandparent and grandchild."

Leaders in the state legislature have said they expected legislators to adopt civil unions, not "gay marriage."

MASS. COURT TO HEAR AMEND. CASE -- The highest court in Massachusetts will hear oral arguments Dec. 20 in a case that could determine whether a proposed constitutional marriage amendment makes it on the 2008 ballot. The case stems from a lawsuit filed by Massachusetts Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, who is asking the high court to place the amendment on the ballot if the legislature fails to act on it.

Judith A. Cowin, associate justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, heard arguments for 20 minutes Nov. 30, then hours later decided to place the matter before the entire court on an expedited basis, The Boston Globe reported. The Dec. 20 hearing will come two weeks before Romney leaves office, The Globe reported. He did not seek re-election.

Legislators are scheduled to meet Jan. 2 to deal with the amendment, although both sides believe the body likely will attempt to adjourn without taking action. Amendment supporters say they have the votes to pass it if it is given a vote.

The state constitution, Romney says, requires legislators to give proposed amendments up-or-down votes. Amendment supporters gathered approximately 170,000 signatures to place it before the legislature.

"The legislature took an oath to uphold the constitution," Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom told The Globe. "This is no longer just about gay marriage. It's about the right of the people to participate in their own government."

CANADA TO DEBATE 'GAY MARRIAGE' -- The Canadian Parliament will begin debate Dec. 6 on a motion to reopen the issue of "gay marriage," the Conservative government said Nov. 28, according to CBC News. If it passes, it could be the first step toward reversing a law passed in 2005 legalizing "gay marriage." However, head counts show that the motion might fail.

The "gay marriage" law was pushed through by the then-Liberal government, which fell and was defeated at the polls by the Conservatives in January.

Christians throughout the country are urging Canadians to contact their member of Parliament (MP) in the days leading up to the vote.

"Whether the vote is favourable or not, may it not be said that God’s people were silent when such a critical issue was before our lawmakers," Terence Rolston, president of Focus on the Family Canada, said in an e-mail to supporters. "Please stand with us and voice your support for God’s truth about marriage."

Information on how Canadians can contact their MP is available at http://www.fotf.ca/tfn/takeAction/Activism_101/Contact_Officials.html.

--30--
For more information about the national debate over "gay marriage," visit http://www.bpnews.net/samesexmarriage

House vote on fetal pain bill expected soon

House vote on fetal pain bill expected soon

Dec 1, 2006
By Staff
Baptist Press

WASHINGTON (BP)--The House of Representatives is expected to vote Dec. 5 or 6 on a bill requiring women to be informed about the pain their unborn children will experience if they undergo late-term abortions.

The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, H.R. 6099, would require an abortion doctor to provide a woman at least 20 weeks into pregnancy with information about the pain her unborn child would experience during the procedure. If the woman still decides to have an abortion, she would have the option of anesthesia for her unborn baby in order to reduce his pain.

The Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission supports the measure as do the National Right to Life Committee, Christian Medical Association, Concerned Women for America, Family Research Council and other pro-life organizations. Even NARAL Pro-choice America, one of the country’s leading abortion rights groups, declined to oppose an earlier, more comprehensive version of the legislation.

If the House approves the bill, there is no assurance the Senate will act on it. The Republican-controlled Congress is in a lame-duck session that will end in December. The Democrats gained control of both houses in the November election and will become the majority party in January, when all legislation will have to be reintroduced.

Rep. Christopher Smith, R.-N.J., introduced the fetal pain bill in September as a revision of earlier legislation he sponsored. The new version calls for the Department of Health and Human Services to develop a brochure to be provided women seeking abortions about 20 weeks into their pregnancy. The brochure would inform such women there is “substantial evidence” unborn children experience pain during abortions at this point in gestation. The new measure also would not require a doctor’s medical license be revoked for violations but would still provide for civil penalties.

The pain experienced by unborn children at the midpoint of pregnancy was testified to during 2004 trials in challenges to a federal ban on partial-birth abortion.

In testimony before a federal judge in Lincoln, Neb., Kanwaljeet Anand, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, said a partial-birth abortion “would be extremely painful” for an unborn baby at 20 weeks gestation, the Omaha World-Herald reported. Unborn children at 20 weeks have developed the sensory nerves, skin receptors and brain stem required to feel pain, he said. Studies have demonstrated unborn babies display pain physiologically, exhibiting an increased heart rate and the secretion of stress hormones, Anand testified. He also said the pain could be as great for an unborn child who is aborted by means of another procedure in which the baby is dismembered.

In a partial-birth abortion, a doctor normally delivers an intact baby, feet first, until only the head is left in the birth canal. The doctor pierces the base of the infant’s skull with surgical scissors, then inserts a catheter into the opening and suctions out the brain, killing the child.

Two 2004 public opinion surveys showed Americans strongly support giving information about fetal pain to women considering abortion when their pregnancy is 20 weeks or more. A Zogby poll found 77 percent support laws requiring women receive such evidence, and a Wirthlin Worldwide survey found 75 percent agree with such laws.

The House bill has 93 cosponsors.

Sen. Sam Brownback, R.-Kan., introduced S. 51, a companion version to Smith’s earlier legislation, in 2005, but it has not been acted on in a committee or on the floor. The Senate bill has 34 cosponsors.

Federal courts at both the district and appellate levels struck down the 2003 Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the cases Nov. 8 and is expected to issue a ruling in the first half of 2007.

--30--
Compiled by Tom Strode.

Escaping Sexual Sin Before it's Too Late

Escaping Sexual Sin Before it's Too Late

By Rev. Marty O'Rourke Guest Writer

CBN.com – Overcoming Temptation Will Cost Your Pride Dearly

Why are so many strong Christians succumbing to sexual sin? We must remember that we as Christians do not live in a vacuum but in a culture filled with temptations that stir lust. Many people have fallen because they underestimated the power of sexual temptation.

Paul’s first letter to the Church at Corinth has the strongest teaching about sexual sin because Corinth, like our culture, was saturated with sexual temptation.

The Bible declares that God is faithful and no matter what temptation we face, He will provide “a way out so that you can stand up under it” (1 Cor. 10:13).

God’s will for us is to overcome temptation, but it will cost us dearly, especially our pride. The preceding passage (1 Cor 10:12) warns us: “So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall!” God is telling us that the first step in overcoming temptation is to beware of the attitude, “It couldn’t happen to me.”

As the wisdom of Proverbs says, pride sets us up for a fall.

The Rev. Gordon MacDonald, a wonderful pastor and at one time president of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, shares in his book Rebuilding Your Broken World about a time when he was asked about how Satan might get him. He answered:

All sorts of ways, I suppose; but I know there's one way he wouldn't get me. “What's that?” He'd never get me in the area of my personal relationships. That's one place where I have no doubt that I'm as strong as you can get. A few years after that conversation my world broke wide open. A chain of seemingly innocent choices became destructive, and it was my fault. Choice by choice by choice, each easier to make, each becoming gradually darker. And then my world broke -- in the very area I had predicted I was safe -- and my world had to be rebuilt.

He goes on to quote from My Utmost for His Highest: “An unguarded strength is actually a double weakness.” Here is a man of God with a good marriage who had written books on family life and yet fell into adultery. Why? Because he thought it couldn’t happen to him and left this part of his life unguarded.

If David, who was “a man after God’s own heart,” Gordon MacDonald, and many other strong men and women of faith yielded to sexual temptation, it could happen to you. God is telling us through these words of Paul -- “So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall!” (1 Cor. 10:12) -- that our vulnerability to sin increases when we think it could not happen to us.

Almost all Christians, especially Christian leaders, who have fallen to sexual temptation would tell you that they did not think it could have happened to them.

1 Corinthians 6:18 warns us, “Flee from sexual immorality.” It is easy for pride to convince us that we don’t really need to FLEE, and that this instruction is for weaker Christians. We mislead ourselves into thinking that instead of fleeing we can stroll away, looking back once in awhile, because we are strong enough to resist or flirt with temptation. Admitting that we need to flee takes real Christian humility. Remember, overcoming sexual temptation will cost your pride dearly.

When do you need to flee?

When you find yourself thinking about a “friend, co-worker, ministry partner, counselee” and how much you enjoy being with this person -- FLEE!

When you look forward to spending more time with this person and you make sure you look especially nice if you know you might see your “friend” that day -- FLEE!

If you begin to fantasize about being with this person or knowingly start touching your “friend” in “innocent “ ways -- FLEE!

When you become more secretive about your interaction with your “friend” because people like your spouse might “misunderstand” your friendship -- FLEE!

If you receive cards, e-mails or presents from this person that you would not want your spouse to see -- FLEE!

When you find yourself comparing your spouse in an unfavorable way to your “friend”-- FLEE!

If you start confiding in your “friend” about your marital problems -- FLEE!

Anytime we feel we must keep something secret, this would indicate that sin is crouching at our door. If you are experiencing sexual attraction to someone – or experiencing some other kind of temptation over a few days – go to your spouse or someone you can trust in the Body of Christ. Bring the secret out into the light of day and ask for prayer and accountability.

Satan loves it when we keep secrets in the dark because of shame, fear, or pride – but remember, darkness is overcome by light. Often this alone can break the power of temptation, but it will cost you your pride.

Many are unwilling to sacrifice their pride by admitting their struggle with sin to get the help they need. There is great wisdom in these words by Rick Warren:

If you’re losing the battle against a persistent bad habit, an addiction, or a temptation, and you're stuck in a repeating cycle of good intention-failure-guilt, you will not get better on your own. You need the help of other people. Some temptations are only overcome with the help of a partner who prays for you, encourages you, and holds you accountable.

Tragically, too many people – because of family background, having experienced sexual abuse or abandonment, or having a long history of struggling with lust – need significant ministry, yet are unwilling to get help until they are forced to do so after yielding to sin.

Yes, there is a price that your pride must pay to overcome temptation – but please take a moment and consider the much greater price of yielding to temptation. Consider the damage to the cause of Christ, to your family, and to your Christian witness, along with the pain you will cause yourself and the ones you love the most.

God has given us everything we need to overcome temptation, but it will cost our pride dearly. However, I plead with you to consider the even greater cost of yielding to the temptation.
Recommended resources:

Stanley Greg, Betrayal of TrustGregory L. Jantz, Too Close to the Flame

Quoted resources:

Gordon MacDonald, Rebuilding Your Broken World (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1988) 53Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His HighestRick Warren, The Purpose-driven Life: What on Earth Am I Here For? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002) 212.More Church and Ministry Resources

More from the Clergy Corner

More from Spiritual Life on CBN.com

Marty O'Rourke is Rector of Church of the Messiah in Chesapeake, Virginia. Marty has written and taught extensively on sexual purity and marital fidelity in the church. He is often called upon to teach a seminar he has developed called 'Guard Your Heart: Sexual Misconduct Prevention for Ministers.' This seminar is designed to help Christian leaders avoid the pitfalls of sexual temptation.

For more information, you can contact him by e-mail at morourke@churchofthemessiah.org.

Thursday, November 30, 2006

Court rules against ACLU, atheist on San Diego cross

Court rules against ACLU, atheist on San Diego cross
Judges say voter measure transferring land to federal government constitutional

Posted: November 30, 2006
6:30 p.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

In a major victory for backers of San Diego's Mt. Soledad cross, an appeals court ruled today in favor of a voter measure that authorized transfer of the land beneath the memorial to the federal government.

A panel of justices from the 4th District Court of Appeal ruled 3-0 that Proposition A was constitutional, overturning a decision by Superior Court Judge Patricia Yim Cowett that invalidated the measure. The court also reversed a $275,000 attorney fee award received by an ACLU-backed lawyer for plaintiff Phillip Paulsen, an atheist who died last month.

"We are quite pleased with the court's decision," said Charles LiMandri, the West Coast Regional Director for the Thomas More Law Center, which argued the case. "It protects the will of the people and their desire to preserve a historical, veterans memorial for future generations."

The battle began in 1989 when Paulsen filed suit, and a court ordered the city to remove the cross. In 1998, the city sold the property to the Mt. Soledad War Memorial Association, which again was challenged in court. The sale originally was upheld but later ruled unconstitutional by the full panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco and remanded back to district court to work out a remedy.

Proposition A, passed by 75 percent in July 2005, called for the city to donate the cross to the federal government as the centerpiece of the veterans memorial.

The ballot initiative came about after the city refused to donate the cross and memorial to the federal government. A group called San Diegans for the Mount Soledad National War Memorial took just 23 days to gather 105,000 signatures.

Paulson had argued against the validity of Proposition A, contending it violated the state constitutional ban on government aid or preference to religion.

But the justices today decided the voter initiative not an establishment of religion by San Diego voters.

"Given the language of Proposition A and the official ballot argument in favor of the proposition, we cannot conclude the individuals who voted for the proposition acted in order to establish the Christian religion or favor that religion," wrote Associate Justice Patricia Benke.

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, which is defending the constitutionality of the cross, said the decision "clearly shows that the ballot proposition was proper."

"This decision represents another important legal victory in the ongoing battle to keep the Mt. Soledad Memorial in place," he said.

Judge Moore files brief supporting 'In God We Trust'

Judge Moore files brief supporting 'In God We Trust'
Says Constitution never meant neutrality between religion and non-religion

Posted: November 30, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Bob Unruh

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

The Foundation for Moral Law has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a lawsuit challenging the legality of the United States' motto "In God We Trust," saying "neutrality between religion and non-religion … is a myth lacking both logical and historical underpinnings."

The foundation, launched by former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice and now WND columnist Judge Roy Moore, was set up by Moore after he was removed from his state judicial position for refusing to follow a federal order he believed unconstitutional – to remove a Ten Commandments representation from state property.

It exists to argue for and support the recognition of God in America, and that's why it entered the California case filed by Dr. Michael Newdow, who is suing because he claims the motto is an unconstitutional "establishment" of religion.

Moore's brief in the case notes that, "complete neutrality concerning religion in the public square does not exist and was never intended in our law." Neutrality between religions? Yes. But not neutrality between religion and non-religion.

"The primary author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, observed that, 'No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be,'" the foundation document said.

In his weekly column for WND, Moore says the nation today is facing another challenge not altogether different from the night Francis Scott Key wrote the words to the Star-Spangled Banner, which include:

Blest with vict'ry and peace may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto – "In God is our Trust."

"Our nation is under an attack that threatens our survival. This time an enemy from within seeks to destroy America's godly heritage and force us to surrender our public faith in God. We must withstand this bombardment by realizing that the shells of atheism lack the powder of truth and will not enjoy success if we stand together and fight! Then, when the smoke clears, the flag of our faith will be seen as a beacon to the rest of the world and our national motto as a testament to our trust in God," he wrote.

"The Declaration of Independence itself states that 'all Men are created equal' and are 'endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…'" Moore noted in the foundation brief. The U.S. Constitution itself, according to John Adams, does not create a "government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion … Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other," the foundation brief said.

The lawsuit was brought by Newdow, who earlier took a lawsuit alleging "under God" should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. Supreme Court where he lost on a technicality, and he claims the motto violates the Establishment Clause.

Newdow, who says he has his own religious rights under his own "First Amendment Church of True Science," also has refiled his complaint over the Pledge, and that also now is pending.

The Foundation's interest in the case is that it believes "In God We Trust" is one of many public acknowledgments of God that have been "espoused from the very beginning of this nation."

"The Foundation believes that the government should encourage such acknowledgment of God because He is the sovereign source of American law, liberty, and government," the filing explained.

Statutes authorizing the motto "in no way violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because the statutes do not conflict with the text of that Amendment, particularly as it was historically defined by common understanding at the time of the Amendment's adoption."

And the court's responsibility is to exercise its authority based on the text of the document from which that authority is derived, Moore said.

"The text of the Establishment Clause states that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,'" the brief says. "When these words are applied to the statutes in issue, it becomes evident that the statutes and the phrase 'In God We Trust' do not dictate religion to anyone and do not represent a form of an establishment thereof. While this important statement about the religious conviction of the nation may offend someone, it properly expresses the spirit of 'We the People' as a whole and does not offend the First Amendment to the Constitution."

The legal filing, which acts in an advisory capacity for the court, endorsed the district court, which concluded there was nothing unconstitutional about the motto, basing the decision on a previous case that concluded, "[It] is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of reliion."

But the Foundation for Moral Law said the appeals court could go further. "To get the case completely right, this Court … should apply the words of the First Amendment according to their meaning when they were first adopted."

"Following the carefully crafted words of the Establishment Clause will yield the correct result in this case, save the Court from the headache of having to guess which test Supreme Court would employ to evaluate the constitutionality of the motto, and ensure that the Court is adhering to its oath to uphold the Constitution," the brief said.

Over the years various courts have set up "tests" to determine the constitutionality of such items, but Moore said all that's needed is the Establishment Clause itself.

Those tests "erroneously assume that the language of the Establishment Clause is not clear and that somehow judicially-fabricated tests will succeed where the original language has purportedly failed," the brief said. "However, the exact opposite is the case: jurisprudential experiments with various extra-textual 'tests' such as Lemon, the Endorsement test, and the coercion test have produced a continuum of disparate results."

The issue was addressed 150 years ago when the Senate Judiciary Committee, while considering the Congressional chaplaincy, said, "[The Founders] had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people; they did not intend to prohibit a just expression of religious devotion by the legislators of the nation, even in their public character as legislators; they did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistical apathy."

"The neutrality that Newdow asks for is, in fact, a hostility toward religion by another name. Because this nation is so steeped in a tradition of recognizing God, to suddenly forbid expressions in the public square about God would place the government's imprimatur on atheism," the brief said.

"The motto, 'In God We Trust,' is an acknowledgment of God and His integral role in the life of the nation. It contains a 'religious' element, but it does not represent a 'religion'' under the Establishment Clause."

Justice Joseph Story in his Commentaries on the Constitution said the real object of the amendment was "to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment."

The case is being defended by the U.S. Justice Department and Pacific Justice Institute.

PJI chief counsel Kevin Snider earlier told WND his documents already had been filed.

"We better take this one seriously," constitutional attorney Herbert W. Titus told D. James Kennedy's Coral Ridge ministry. "Otherwise, we're going to see a very strong erosion of the references to God at the federal level."

The radical elimination of those references already has been under way for some years, as WND reported in a story about the U.S. Supreme Court changing its official description of stone tablets in the artwork within the very chamber where decisions are delivered. As recently as 20 years ago, they were officially the Ten Commandments. Now they are the Ten Amendments.

Newdow has admitted that references such as the motto do not require him to believe in God, but he told WND he still wants to eradicate the historic motto in public places and instead install his own belief system that does not acknowledge God.

He said his goal is to have "the government treat everybody's religious views equally."

Snider warned if Newdow is successful, there could be a ripple across the land for years to come. Even the Constitution's own reference that it was done "in convention … in the year of our Lord" 1787, apparently could be considered "unconstitutional" under that reasoning, observers said.

Also filing amicus briefs in the case were several other Christian and civil liberties organizations, including the national public-interest Thomas More Law Center and the American Center for Law and Justice.

"The Establishment Clause was never intended as a guarantee that a person will not be exposed to religion or religious symbols on public property, and the Supreme Court has rejected previous attempts to eradicate all symbols of this country’s religious heritage from the public’s view," the ACLJ's brief argued. "Although enterprising plaintiffs can find support for just about any proposition in the Court's multifarious Establishment Clause pronouncements, a claim that the national motto violates the First Amendment borders on frivolous."

Search the Bible

Lookup a word or passage in the Bible



BibleGateway.com
Include this form on your page
You scored as Reformed Evangelical. You are a Reformed Evangelical. You take the Bible very seriously because it is God's Word. You most likely hold to TULIP and are sceptical about the possibilities of universal atonement or resistible grace. The most important thing the Church can do is make sure people hear how they can go to heaven when they die.


What's your theological worldview?
created with QuizFarm.com

Ray Comforts Blog...