BMAT Moral Action Committee Watchman Report   #188     05/23/2007

  

               News Topics of a Conservative Interest or Moral Concern – New Format

 

   

 

 

Texas Marriages Threatened by California Ruling - The California Supreme Court's 4-3 ruling sanctioning same-sex marriage is the most radical and far-reaching advancement of the homosexual agenda in our nation’s history! Let me be clear... There is no waiting period. No requirement that one be a California resident. Virtually no restrictions. That means in less than a month, people will literally be flocking to California to get married with the full intention of taking that "marriage" back to Texas and other states. More

Federal Marriage Amendment Reintroduced - It is the only way to protect marriage from activist judges like the ones in California. U.S. Rep. Paul Broun, R-Md., was expected to introduce a constitutional amendment today to protect marriage from redefinition by state and federal judges.The Marriage Protection Amendment is being offered in response to the recent 4-3 decision by the California Supreme Court to redefine marriage to include unions between homosexuals. The amendment, which has failed twice in the House and twice in the Senate, states: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman." More

Maryland Stand their Ground for Parent’s Rights - While California's high court has proven a willing accomplice in the redefinition of the family, the Maryland Supreme Court stood its ground yesterday in a landmark ruling for parents' rights. The victory dealt a significant blow to the state's gay and lesbian lobby, who planned to use this case as a legal basis for creating alternative family structures. By a 6-1 vote, the justices rejected the idea that any third-party, non-biological, non-adoptive individual could win visitation rights to a child over a parent's objections. More

Colorado Legislation 'Tramples Religious Freedoms' - All 'public accommodations,' including restrooms, would be opened to men, women, bisexuals, transsexuals and transgendered individuals. The next time you visit Colorado, you may run into members of the opposite sex when you use a public restroom. Under a bill sitting on Gov. Bill Ritter's desk, all "public accommodations" must be open to men, women, bisexuals, transsexuals and "transgendered" individuals. Senate Bill 200 adds religion and sexual orientation to state nondiscrimination statutes. Supporters claim the bill will prevent discrimination; in reality, the bill endangers religious freedom by opening the door for the state to punish any person or organization. More

Court Rewrites Law to Beat the Partial Birth Abortion Ban - Yesterday, a federal circuit court in Virginia struck down that state's ban on partial-birth abortion, despite the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court last year upheld the federal ban on this gruesome procedure. This is a troubling decision that speaks to America's ongoing problem with judicial arrogance. Virginia has been trying to ban partial-birth abortion for years. Its law was already struck down once, and yesterday the Fourth Circuit, by a 2 to 1 vote, said it was still unconstitutional, this time because it might be used against an abortionist who started a legal abortion and then accidentally performed a partial-birth abortion. More

Federal Court Rules Against Military Gays Policy - The military cannot automatically discharge people because they're gay, a federal appeals court ruled in the case of a decorated flight nurse who sued the Air Force over her dismissal. The three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not strike down the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. But they reinstated Maj. Margaret Witt's lawsuit, saying the Air Force must prove that her dismissal furthered the military's goals of troop readiness and unit cohesion. The "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue, don't harass" policy prohibits the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members but requires discharge of those who acknowledge being gay or engaging in homosexual activity. Wednesday's ruling led opponents of the policy to declare its days numbered. It is also the first appeals court ruling in the country that evaluated the policy through the lens of a 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas ban on sodomy as an unconstitutional intrusion on privacy. More

War Bill Supplements Planned Parenthood - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has a funny way of expressing his appreciation for our troops this Memorial Day. Rather than honoring our soldiers with the funding they need, the Senate is stuffing the war supplemental bill with pro-abortion paybacks for groups like Planned Parenthood. By fattening up the legislation with controversial earmarks, the leadership has not only jeopardized the timetable for the bill's passage but raised the possibility that it will not pass at all. Despite the urgent needs of our servicemen, Reid and his liberal allies are more concerned about funding the war against the unborn than the war in Iraq. More

Tyranny of the atheist minority - Daily there are news reports of atheists offended by prayers at graduations and football games; offended by a Cross or Star of David; offended by Christmas carols or patriotic hymns; offended by Christmas trees and menorahs; offended by the Ten Commandments or "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance; offended a teacher might hint there may be a Creator; offended a soldier said "God bless you" at a funeral; offended the Boy Scout Oath says "Do my duty to God and my country"; or offended by a cross on a Veterans Memorial. Whereas basic Christian teaching is to forgive when offended, these atheists, when offended, protest, intimidate, threaten and sue to have their will enforced as law. But exactly how many atheists are in America, anyway? More

Most Americans Say Divorce is Morally Acceptable - A growing acceptance of divorce is leading to the demise of the family. A record 70 percent of Americans believe divorce is morally acceptable, according to Gallup’s 2008 Values and Beliefs survey. That's an 11-point increase from seven years ago. Mike McManus, co-founder of Marriage Savers, said two generations of high divorce rates have made divorce the norm in America. “Since 1970, that’s 42 million divorces, shattering the lives of 40 million children," he said. "We have the highest divorce rate in the world, and for 70 percent of Americans to say it’s morally acceptable is really quite stunning.” More

Critics Slam Boston Doctor Who Offers Sex Change Treatment to Kids - Dr. Norman Spack, a pediatric specialist at Children's Hospital Boston, has been criticized for offering sex change treatments for children. Boston’s Children’s Hospital bills itself as the hospital for children — and now it’s also the hospital for children who want a sex change, a procedure some critics are calling “barbaric.” Dr. Norman Spack, a pediatric specialist at the hospital, has launched a clinic for transgendered kids — boys who feel like girls, girls who want to be boys — and he’s opening his doors to patients as young as 7. Spack offers his younger patients counseling and drugs that delay the onset of puberty. The drugs stop the natural flood of hormones that would make it difficult to have a sex alteration later in life, allowing patients more time to decide whether they want to make the change. More

Massachusetts Senator Proposes Additional $300,000 for Pro-Homosexual Programs in Schools - Group calls for strong public response against taxpayer funding of homosexual activism in schools. BOSTON, - In what many consider a victory for the children of Massachusetts, a budget measure passed by the Massachusetts House of Representatives to increase its previous $500,000 funding of ‘gay friendly’ programs targeting school children to $750,000, was cut back by $200,000 by the Senate Ways and Means Committee. This partial cutback was the government's response to a wave of public outrage which flooded the Committee from all over North America. MassResistance.org, the pro-family action centre for Massachusetts, was responsible for uncovering this story and making the public aware of the homosexual lobby’s attempt to acquire further state funding for their school based indoctrination programs. More

Religious Freedoms Protected in Supreme Court Ruling: Free Market Wins - Monday, the United States Supreme Court denied a petition to overturn Barrow v. Greenville ISD. After over ten years of legal battling, Free Market's victory came as a relief to Karen Jo Barrow, a school teacher who was denied a position as an assistant principal by the Greenville ISD superintendent because she had chosen the enroll her children in a private Christian school. The U.S. District Court held former Superintendent Dr. Herman Smith personally liable under this decision, awarding Mrs. Barrow lost wages and punitive damages. More importantly, this victory is now the highest level precedent in the country protecting the rights of parents and Christian educators to place their children in Christian education. More

British Lawmakers Approve Animal-Human Embryos - LONDON - British lawmakers have approved plans to create animal-human embryos for research. The British House of Commons has passed an animal-human hybrid law that pushes the U.K. deeper into science's uncharted waters than any other country in the world. After just three hours of fiery debate, critics of the research fell far short of blocking this radical marriage of the human and animal species. By a lopsided 336 to 176, MP's granted scientists the license to create any kind of hybrid, including those derived from cloning, animal eggs and human sperm, genetic engineering, and more. The proposed laws have provoked stormy debate, pitting Prime Minister Gordon Brown and scientists against religious leaders, anti-abortion campaigners and a large number of lawmakers. More

 

 Articles:

Texas Marriages Threatened by California Ruling

May 20 2008 Liberty Council

The California Supreme Court's 4-3 ruling sanctioning same-sex marriage is the most radical and far-reaching advancement of the homosexual agenda in our nation’s history! Let me be clear... There is no waiting period. No requirement that one be a California resident. Virtually no restrictions. That means in less than a month, people will literally be flocking to California to get married with the full intention of taking that "marriage" back to Texas and other states.

This one case could create thousands of lawsuits and legal conflicts on marriage across this Nation! + + Emergency Petition to suspend the ruling Liberty Counsel's legal team is filing an emergency motion urging the Court to put a "stay" (suspension) on that ruling. I am asking you to join with Liberty Counsel in calling for the suspension of the ruling.

Why this ruling must be put on hold We believe we have a strong case for this ruling to be suspended because in November, the people of California will vote on a constitutional amendment that would reverse the Court’s decision. But by then it will be too late. Between now and November, thousands of same-sex marriages will likely already be created, creating legal havoc that will likely touch every state in the union.

 Even if Californians vote to uphold one-man, one-woman marriage, serious damage will already be done. As I noted, Liberty Counsel is filing a motion with the Court.

 I am asking you to support our effort by signing this petition. We will be delivering your petition to California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and as many other officials as events warrant.

 Thank you for taking a stand to defend marriage in its most perilous hour! Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman Liberty Counsel To sign, go here: http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?u=7424&RID=16112410

Currently, advocates of traditional marriage involved in the case have asked the California Supreme Court to 'stay' their ruling until the people of California vote on a marriage constitutional amendment in November. If the court denies this 'stay,' consider the massive logistical, political as well as moral consequences.

What happens when same-sex couples obtain "marriage" licenses and then a constitutional amendment solidifying marriage as only between a man and woman is passed? Same-sex marriages will also be transported nationwide in an attempt to force a redefinition on the whole country.

Dennis Prager, in this thoughtful article, has deemed the result a "Brave New World," where divorce flourishes and gender is distorted. Pray that the California judges issue a stay until the people are allowed to decide by vote in November.

 

 

 

 

 

Federal Marriage Amendment Reintroduced

May 22 2008 Jennifer Mesko, managing editor Citizen Link

It is the only way to protect marriage from activist judges like the ones in California.

U.S. Rep. Paul Broun, R-Md., was expected to introduce a constitutional amendment today to protect marriage from redefinition by state and federal judges.

The Marriage Protection Amendment is being offered in response to the recent 4-3 decision by the California Supreme Court to redefine marriage to include unions between homosexuals. The amendment, which has failed twice in the House and twice in the Senate, states: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."

“Americans have traditionally recognized this definition as being the most beneficial arrangement for the creation of stable family structures and for the upbringing of children," Broun said. "Americans have repeatedly shown their preference for the traditional definition of one-man, one-woman marriage by passing state and federal laws or by amending state constitutions to preserve the traditional definition.

“There simply is no basis for the suggestion that homosexual ‘marriage’ is a right protected by the United States Constitution.”

The amendment has received widespread support from Republicans. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the likely GOP presidential nominee, was one of just five Republican senators to oppose the amendment in 2004.

Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said President Bush is calling for a marriage amendment following the California decision.

"It is clear today that the only sure way to guarantee the sanctity of the institution of marriage is to amend the Constitution," she said.

TAKE ACTION
Please ask your U.S. representative to co-sponsor the Marriage Protection Amendment.

Also, ask Sen. John McCain to support American families by backing the Marriage Protection Amendment.

 

 

 

 

 

Maryland Stand their Ground for Parent’s Rights

May 20 2008 Tony Perkins Family Research Council

While California's high court has proven a willing accomplice in the redefinition of the family, the Maryland Supreme Court stood its ground yesterday in a landmark ruling for parents' rights. The victory dealt a significant blow to the state's gay and lesbian lobby, who planned to use this case as a legal basis for creating alternative family structures.

By a 6-1 vote, the justices rejected the idea that any third-party, non-biological, non-adoptive individual could win visitation rights to a child over a parent's objections. In this case, a lesbian sued her ex-partner for visitation rights to the woman's adopted daughter. Two lower courts granted it, despite the fact that the woman had never adopted the child. While Margaret K. claimed that her role in the girl's life was sufficient to grant her legal standing, the Supreme Court disagreed. Chief Justice Robert Bell wrote that Margaret failed to meet any "rigorous test" qualifying her as a "de facto" parent. He said that if the state wanted to codify de facto parenting, the General Assembly was free to do so.

This answer didn't please Equality Maryland, one of the state's most radical homosexual advocates. Equality's spokesman told the Baltimore Sun, "...[O]nce again it's very frustrating that the court did what they did and kick[ed] it back to the legislature." If the court had sided with Margaret, the judicial floodgates would have opened to challenges by thousands of "de facto" parents, who believe that they have a "right to relationship" with children to whom they are not legally or biologically bound.

FRC has carefully monitored the case from the beginning and even submitted an amicus brief with the Alliance Defense Fund that sided with the state's long-standing adoptive protocol. As the culture tinkers with the natural definition of the family, the fate of an institution created and ordained by God has been vulnerable to the whims of the courts. We are relieved to see that these justices recognized their role in protecting--not rewriting--the definition of the family.

Additional Resources
Court denies visitation to ex-partner

 

 

 

 

 

 

Colorado Legislation 'Tramples Religious Freedoms'

May 21 2008 Jennifer Mesko, managing editor Citizen Link

All 'public accommodations,' including restrooms, would be opened to men, women, bisexuals, transsexuals and transgendered individuals.

The next time you visit Colorado, you may run into members of the opposite sex when you use a public restroom.

Under a bill sitting on Gov. Bill Ritter's desk, all "public accommodations" must be open to men, women, bisexuals, transsexuals and "transgendered" individuals.

Senate Bill 200 adds religion and sexual orientation to state nondiscrimination statutes. Supporters claim the bill will prevent discrimination; in reality, the bill endangers religious freedom by opening the door for the state to punish any person or organization — including small and home-based businesses — that refuses, for religious or other moral reasons, to offer or sell goods or services to homosexuals, bisexuals, 'transgendered' and transsexual individuals.

Focus on the Family Action began airing radio ads today to inform Coloradans about this over-reaching bill.

SB 200 would:

·         Apply to all "public accommodations" in Colorado — including gender-specific public restrooms in shopping malls, movie theaters and churches, and public locker rooms in athletic facilities, which would suddenly be required to permit equal access to men, women and cross-dressers.

·         Require churches or other religious nonprofits that rent facilities to the public to also rent to individuals conducting a same-sex "commitment ceremony" or other activities the organization deems immoral.

"With SB 200, we no longer have two 'sexes,' " said Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action. "We enter a brave new world with a myriad of 'sexual orientations.' This bill, unfortunately, is in keeping with a national effort by 'transgender' advocacy organizations to accomplish an open-bathroom policy."

Hausknecht said sexual predators can be expected to use this law as "cover" as they search for their next victims — in any public bathroom they come across.

"SB 200 threatens public safety and tramples religious freedoms," he said. "This bill needs to be vetoed and sent back to the Legislature with instructions to come back next session with something that all Coloradans can be proud of."

TAKE ACTION
If you live in Colorado, please call and e-mail Gov. Bill Ritter today and ask him to veto SB 200. On the e-mail form, select "Share Your Opinion" from the drop-down menu. If you live outside Colorado, you can stay up to date on legislation in your state through your Family Policy Council.

 

 

 

 

 

Court Rewrites Law to Beat the Ban

May 21 2008 Tony Perkins Family Research Council

Yesterday, a federal circuit court in Virginia struck down that state's ban on partial-birth abortion, despite the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court last year upheld the federal ban on this gruesome procedure.

This is a troubling decision that speaks to America's ongoing problem with judicial arrogance. Virginia has been trying to ban partial-birth abortion for years. Its law was already struck down once, and yesterday the Fourth Circuit, by a 2 to 1 vote, said it was still unconstitutional, this time because it might be used against an abortionist who started a legal abortion and then accidentally performed a partial-birth abortion.

Judge Niemeyer in dissent scoffed at such an implausible claim and pointed out that hypothetical challenges like this one are no longer acceptable according to the Supreme Court. Part of the strength of last year's Supreme Court ruling was its insistence that abortionists bring real cases with real facts when challenging an abortion law. But the Fourth Circuit ignored this admonition and overturned the will of Virginians on the basis of a hypothetical claim from the abortion industry.

We urge the Commonwealth to seek review of this activist decision that thumbs its nose at both the people of Virginia and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Additional Resources
Va. Abortion Law Overturned Again [Washington Post]

 

 

 

 

 

Federal Court Rules Against Military Gays Policy

May 23 2008 Church Report Online

The military cannot automatically discharge people because they're gay, a federal appeals court ruled in the case of a decorated flight nurse who sued the Air Force over her dismissal.
 
The three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not strike down the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. But they reinstated Maj. Margaret Witt's lawsuit, saying the Air Force must prove that her dismissal furthered the military's goals of troop readiness and unit cohesion.
 
The "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue, don't harass" policy prohibits the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members but requires discharge of those who acknowledge being gay or engaging in homosexual activity.
 
Wednesday's ruling led opponents of the policy to declare its days numbered. It is also the first appeals court ruling in the country that evaluated the policy through the lens of a 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas ban on sodomy as an unconstitutional intrusion on privacy.
 
When gay service members have sued over their dismissals, courts historically have accepted the military's argument that having gays in the service is generally bad for morale and can lead to sexual tension.
 
But the Supreme Court's opinion in the Texas case changed the legal landscape, the judges said, and requires more scrutiny over whether "don't ask, don't tell" is constitutional as applied in individual cases.
 
Under the latest ruling, military officials "need to prove that having this particular gay person in the unit really hurts morale, and the only way to improve morale is to discharge this person," said Aaron Caplan, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington state who worked on the case.
 
Witt, a flight nurse based at McChord Air Force Base near Tacoma, was suspended without pay in 2004 after the Air Force received a tip that she had been in a long-term relationship with a civilian woman. Witt was honorably discharged in October 2007 after having put in 18 years - two short of what she needed to receive retirement benefits.
 
She sued the Air Force in 2006, but U.S. District Judge Ronald B. Leighton dismissed her claims, saying the Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas did not change the legality of "don't ask, don't tell."
 
The appeals court judges disagreed.
 
"When the government attempts to intrude upon the personal and private lives of homosexuals, the government must advance an important governmental interest ... and the intrusion must be necessary to further that interest," Judge Ronald M. Gould wrote.
 
One of the judges, William C. Canby Jr., issued a partial dissent, saying that the ruling didn't go far enough. He argued that the Air Force should have to show that the policy itself "is necessary to serve a compelling governmental interest and that it sweeps no more broadly than necessary."
 
Gay service members who are discharged can sue in federal court, and if the military doesn't prove it had a good reason for the dismissal, the cases will go forward, Caplan said.
 
Another attorney for Witt, James Lobsenz, hailed the ruling as the beginning of the end for "don't ask, don't tell."
 
"If the various branches of the Armed Forces have to start proving each application of the policy makes sense, then it's not going to be only Maj. Witt who's going to win," Lobsenz said. "Eventually, they're going to say, 'This is dumb. ... It's time to scrap the policy.'"
 
An Air Force spokeswoman said she had no comment on the decision and directed inquiries to the Defense Department.
 
Lt. Col. Todd Vician, a Defense spokesman, said he did not know specifics of the case and could not comment beyond noting that "the DOD policy simply enacts the law as set forth by Congress."
 
Witt joined the Air Force in 1987 and switched from active duty to the reserves in 1995. She cared for injured patients on military flights and in operating rooms. She was promoted to major in 1999, and she deployed to Oman in 2003 in support of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.
 
A citation from President Bush that year said, "Her airmanship and courage directly contributed to the successful accomplishment of important missions under extremely hazardous conditions."
 
Her suspension and discharge came during a shortage of flight nurses and outraged many of her colleagues - one of whom, a sergeant, retired in protest.
 
"I am thrilled by the court's recognition that I can't be discharged without proving that I was harmful to morale," Witt said in a statement. "I am proud of my career and want to continue doing my job. Wounded people never asked me about my sexual orientation. They were just glad to see me there."

 

 

 

 

 

War Bill Supplements Planned Parenthood

May 21 2008 Tony Perkins Family Research Council

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has a funny way of expressing his appreciation for our troops this Memorial Day. Rather than honoring our soldiers with the funding they need, the Senate is stuffing the war supplemental bill with pro-abortion paybacks for groups like Planned Parenthood.

By fattening up the legislation with controversial earmarks, the leadership has not only jeopardized the timetable for the bill's passage but raised the possibility that it will not pass at all. Despite the urgent needs of our servicemen, Reid and his liberal allies are more concerned about funding the war against the unborn than the war in Iraq. The bill is rolling in pork, including a provision that would give groups like Planned Parenthood a big discount on contraceptives and Plan B, which can act as an abortifacient.

 It would also be a massive cash cow for university health centers, which would also be eligible for a discount on such drugs. Keep in mind that these clinics already make profits on the pills when they mark them up for resale. Nor are many of the recipients suffering in the financial department, thanks to a hefty investment of your hard-earned tax dollars.

So the $165 billion question is: What does any of this have to do with Iraq? Absolutely nothing. Reid's personal political agenda is exposing our active-duty troops to new risks as they wait on Congress to duke out the abortion provisions.

The bill is bloated with millions of dollars in other unnecessary pet projects for infrastructure, health care, NASA, and more. Until Democrats put their anti-war vendetta aside and both parties rein in spending, the supplemental faces failure on the floor or due to the President's veto pen.

Contact your Senators today and remind them that this is no time to make a political statement. Now is the time to support our troops!

Additional Resources
Contact your elected officials
Clean and Clear It [National Review]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tyranny of the atheist minority

May 16 2008 William J. Federer WorldNetDaily

Daily there are news reports of atheists offended by prayers at graduations and football games; offended by a Cross or Star of David; offended by Christmas carols or patriotic hymns; offended by Christmas trees and menorahs; offended by the Ten Commandments or "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance; offended a teacher might hint there may be a Creator; offended a soldier said "God bless you" at a funeral; offended the Boy Scout Oath says "Do my duty to God and my country"; or offended by a cross on a Veterans Memorial.

Whereas basic Christian teaching is to forgive when offended, these atheists, when offended, protest, intimidate, threaten and sue to have their will enforced as law.

But exactly how many atheists are in America, anyway?

USA Today published Feb. 25, 2008, the results of the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, conducted by The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

This survey "of the people" reported that 80.2 percent of Americans hold Judeo-Christian beliefs (51.3 percent Evangelical/Mainline Protestant Christian; 23.9 percent Catholic; 1.6 percent Orthodox & other Christian; 1.7 percent Mormon; and 1.7 percent Jewish.)

Those not reporting or who said nothing in particular represented 12.9 percent, while 1.2 percent were Unitarian-Universalist-Spiritual-New Age-Native; 0.7 percent Buddhist; 0.6 percent Muslim; 0.4 percent Hindu; 0.3 percent Other World Religions, 2.4 percent agnostic ... and only 1.6 percent atheist.

Imagine that – only 1.6 percent atheists, yet their beliefs are becoming the law of the land.

A minority forcing its will on the majority – isn't this the classic definition of tyranny?

Americans may as well be back in colonial times when the king of England used government to enforce his minority views.

The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776, stated:

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. ... A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

In accepting the Democrat Party's re-nomination for president, June 27, 1936, Franklin D. Roosevelt stated:

In 1776, we sought freedom from the tyranny of a political autocracy – from the 18th century royalists who held special privileges from the crown. It was to perpetuate their privilege that they governed without the consent of the governed; that they denied the right of free assembly and free speech; that they restricted the worship of God.

Roosevelt explained America's founders fought the Revolution so "the people" could be their own rulers.

Abraham Lincoln agreed in his Gettysburg Address, Nov. 19, 1863:

That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Alexander Hamilton said in New York's ratification debates, June 21, 1788:

The will of the people makes the essential principle of the government.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1816:

Try ... every provision of our Constitution, and see if it hangs directly on the will of the people. (A.E. Bergh, Writings, 15:32)

James Madison wrote in Philadelphia, Jan. 31, 1792:

The past frequency of wars [is traced] to a will in the government independent of the will of the people.

But is the will of the people still reflected in government?

Are the people still their own rulers?

Lincoln warned in his First Inaugural Address, 1861:

The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made ... the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.

In order to see if the government reflects the beliefs of the people, one must find out what the people believe.

Similar to the Pew Survey noted above, the CIA.gov website's World Factbook (2007) reported that 80.2 percent of the U.S. population holds Judeo-Christian beliefs.

The American Religious Identification Survey (2001), conducted by The Graduate Center of the City University of New York, reported that 77.8 percent of the U.S. population holds Judeo-Christian beliefs (52 percent Protestant, 24.5 percent Catholic, 1.3 percent Jewish).

The rest of the population was 0.5 percent Muslim; 0.5 percent Buddhist; 0.5 percent Agnostic; 0.4 percent Hindu; 0.3 percent Unitarian-Universalist; 0.1 percent Wiccan-Pagan-Druid; 13.2 percent Secular; 6.3 percent Spiritualist-Native American-Baha'i-New Age-Scientology-Humanist-Deist-Taoist-Eckankar ... and only 0.4 percent atheist.

According to these surveys, between 77.8 percent to 80.2 percent of the current U.S. population holds Judeo-Christian beliefs, and only 0.4 percent to 1.6 percent of Americans hold atheistic beliefs.

A Harris Poll (2003) reported 90 percent of Americans believe in God; a Newsweek poll (2007) reported 91 percent of Americans believe in God; and a Fox News poll (2004) reported 92 percent of Americans believe in God.

If the will of majority of "the people" is not reflected in the laws, then the country is no longer "democratic," but has devolved into a tyranny, where a minority forces its will upon the majority.

Could it be that the current debate over religion in America is not between the "religious right" and the "liberal left," but rather it is a debate between the will of the majority and the will of, as George Washington warned in his Farewell Address, "an artful and enterprising minority"?

Could it be that the struggle is between a constitutional republic with representatives elected "by the people" and the despotism of, as Lincoln put it, "an eminent tribunal"?

Could it be that the battle is actually between American democracy and tyranny?

In his classic wisdom, President Ronald Reagan stated:

Sometimes I can't help but feel the First Amendment is being turned on its head. ... The First Amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect the people from religion; that Amendment was written to protect religion from government tyranny (1984 radio address).

To those who cite the First Amendment as reason for excluding God ... may I just say: The First Amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect the people of this country from religious values; it was written to protect religious values from government tyranny (March 15, 1982, to Alabama State Legislature).

Founding Fathers ... enshrined the principle of freedom of religion in the First Amendment. ... The purpose of that Amendment was to protect religion from the interference of government and to guarantee, in its own words, "the free exercise of religion." (1982 radio address)

The Constitution was never meant to prevent people from praying; its declared purpose was to protect their freedom to pray (1982 radio address).

Well-meaning Americans in the name of freedom have taken freedom away. For the sake of religious tolerance, they've forbidden religious practice (May 6, 1982, National Day of Prayer, White House).

The frustrating thing is that those who are attacking religion claim they are doing it in the name of tolerance and freedom and open-mindedness. Question: Isn't the real truth that they are intolerant of religion? (Aug. 23, 1984, Ecumenical Prayer Breakfast).

In the last two decades we've experienced an onslaught of such twisted logic that if Alice were visiting America, she might think she'd never left Wonderland. We're told that it somehow violates the rights of others to permit students in school who desire to pray to do so. Clearly, this infringes on the freedom of those who choose to pray. ... To prevent those who believe in God from expressing their faith is an outrage (Sept. 25, 1982, Ceremony for Prayer in Schools).

Refusal to permit [religious exercises] is seen not as the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism (1984 radio address).

After reviewing America's poll numbers and Reagan's responses in today's climate of ACLU lawsuits, hate-crime legislation, secular revisionism and activist judges trumping the will of the people – one wonders about the future of Lincoln's hope:

That government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most Americans Say Divorce is Morally Acceptable

May 20 2008 Devon Williams, associate editor Citizen Link

A growing acceptance of divorce is leading to the demise of the family.

A record 70 percent of Americans believe divorce is morally acceptable, according to Gallup’s 2008 Values and Beliefs survey. That's an 11-point increase from seven years ago.

Mike McManus, co-founder of Marriage Savers, said two generations of high divorce rates have made divorce the norm in America.

“Since 1970, that’s 42 million divorces, shattering the lives of 40 million children," he said. "We have the highest divorce rate in the world, and for 70 percent of Americans to say it’s morally acceptable is really quite stunning.”

Of the poll’s 16 ethical issues rated for moral acceptability, divorce topped the list, followed by gambling, embryonic stem-cell research, homosexuality and abortion. Extramarital affairs — often a cause of divorce — are at the bottom of the list, with just 7 percent of Americans finding them morally acceptable.

H.B. London, vice president of Church and Clergy at Focus on the Family, said he is discouraged by the demise of the traditional family.

“Divorce violates the condition of the marriage vows, especially for Christians, because we commit to each other and to God until death us do part,” he said. “Marriage is a commitment that God instituted, and it is not up to mankind to determine what constitutes marriage and what doesn't.”

McManus said the Church is not doing its job.

“The Church hardly ever preaches on the issue of divorce or cohabitation or marriage," he said. "It’s God’s first institution, but it’s often the Church’s last institution. The good news is that the Church can turn it around.”

If churches take action and get involved, McManus said, they can virtually guarantee marital success.

“Those who go through serious preparation can divorce-proof their relationship,” he said. “(Churches) can require couples to take a premarital inventory. They can train couples in healthy marriages to mentor other couples to prepare them for marriage, and they can teach them skills of communication and conflict resolution.”

FOR MORE INFORMATION
Focus founder Dr. James Dobson and Focus President Jim Daly discuss the financial impact of divorce on society.

 

 

 

 

 

Critics Slam Boston Doctor Who Offers Sex Change Treatment to Kids

May 19 2008 Fox News

Dr. Norman Spack, a pediatric specialist at Children's Hospital Boston, has been criticized for offering sex change treatments for children.

Boston’s Children’s Hospital bills itself as the hospital for children — and now it’s also the hospital for children who want a sex change, a procedure some critics are calling “barbaric.”

Dr. Norman Spack, a pediatric specialist at the hospital, has launched a clinic for transgendered kids — boys who feel like girls, girls who want to be boys — and he’s opening his doors to patients as young as 7.

Spack offers his younger patients counseling and drugs that delay the onset of puberty. The drugs stop the natural flood of hormones that would make it difficult to have a sex alteration later in life, allowing patients more time to decide whether they want to make the change.

Spack also offers some teenagers hormone therapy, a drastic step that changes the way they grow and develop. While the effects of drug treatments can be stopped, long-term hormone therapy can be irreversible, causing permanent infertility in both sexes.

For some, that trade-off is worth it. Transgendered children are deeply troubled and have a “high level of suicide attempts,” Spack told the Boston Globe. “I’ve never seen any patient make [a suicide attempt] after they’ve started hormonal treatment,” he said.

Spack would not grant an interview to FOXNews.com and the Boston’s Children’s Hospital declined to respond.

But not all doctors are convinced, and some say the treatments do much more harm than good.

“Treating these children with hormones does considerable harm and it compounds their confusion,” said Dr. Paul McHugh, University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at John Hopkins University. “Trying to delay puberty or change someone’s gender is a rejection of the lawfulness of nature.”

McHugh said gender reassignment for children harkens back to the dark ages, when choir boys were castrated to retain their high-pitched voices. "It’s barbaric,” he said.

Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, a legal charity affiliated with the late Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, says that transgender disorder is a mental disorder, not a medical one, and that it should be treated with behavior modification, not hormones or surgery.

“Just as you don’t give liposuction to an anorexic, you don’t do sexual reassignment surgery on men who think that they are women and vice versa,” Staver said.

“At some point in childhood," McHugh said, "many children role play as the opposite sex, but it is a social, not a medical issue.”

But other doctors say there is a transgender “gene.”

Dr. Irene Sills, an physician and Senior Professor of Pediatrics at the State University of New York, has treated 15 transgender children in the last 6 years, and considers the condition innate as a result of her study.

“We have had a case of identical twins that seems to disprove [other] theories,” she told FOXNews.com. “The twin girls were brought up in exactly the same environment, but by the age of 3, one of them kept insisting that she was a boy and kept mimicking masculine dress and behavior.”

Sills reported that her patients and their families have all been pleased with her therapy and support. She said she never asks families to sign a waiver before treating their children. “I trust our procedures and I trust my patients,” she said in an interview.

But some experts expect legal challenges to mount in the face of further treatment. According to Austin Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the conservative Alliance Defense, parents and doctors may not be safe from litigation if children are made sterile due to hormonal treatments — even if they do sign waivers.

“We will eventually start to see such parents and doctors sued and possibly arrested for what is essentially child abuse,” Nimocks told FOXNews.com.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Massachusetts Senator Proposes Additional $300,000 for Pro-Homosexual Programs in Schools

May 20 2008 Mark Westen  lifesitenews

Group calls for strong public response against taxpayer funding of homosexual activism in schools.


BOSTON, - In what many consider a victory for the children of Massachusetts, a budget measure passed by the Massachusetts House of Representatives to increase its previous $500,000 funding of ‘gay friendly’ programs targeting school children to $750,000, was cut back by $200,000 by the Senate Ways and Means Committee. This partial cutback was the government's response to a wave of public outrage which flooded the Committee from all over North America. MassResistance.org, the pro-family action centre for Massachusetts, was responsible for uncovering this story and making the public aware of the homosexual lobby’s attempt to acquire further state funding for their school based indoctrination programs. See full MassResistance coverage: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/govt08/budget/senate02.html

However, since then, in an attempt to overturn this partial victory, State Senator Dianne Wilkerson has filed a budget amendment to increase taxpayer funding for the pro-homosexual school programs by a whopping $300,000. MassResistance reports that the Senator is repaying a favour to the homosexual lobby for their support of her political campaign. The Senate vote on these amendments will occur on Wednesday and Thursday of this week.

Unable to find pro-family support in the Senate, MassResistance has reported that Senator Wilkerson herself would have to withdraw the amendments to avoid what they consider to be a catastrophic misuse of state funds. MassResistance has asked that opponents of the funding contact the Senator to express their outrage over the proposed amendment.

See MassResistance coverage:
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/govt08/budget/senate03.html

Senator Dianne Wilkerson
Room 312-C, State House, Boston, Massachusetts
Office: 617-722-1673 Office Fax: 617-722-1079
Email: Dianne.Wilkerson@state.ma.us

 

 

 

 

 

 

Around Texas:

Religious Freedoms Protected in Supreme Court Ruling: Free Market Wins

May 20 2008 Free Market Foundation

Monday, the United States Supreme Court denied a petition to overturn Barrow v. Greenville ISD. After over ten years of legal battling, Free Market's victory came as a relief to Karen Jo Barrow, a school teacher who was denied a position as an assistant principal by the Greenville ISD superintendent because she had chosen the enroll her children in a private Christian school.

The U.S. District Court held former Superintendent Dr. Herman Smith personally liable under this decision, awarding Mrs. Barrow lost wages and punitive damages. More importantly, this victory is now the highest level precedent in the country protecting the rights of parents and Christian educators to place their children in Christian education.

As a major 1st Amendment decision, the verdict will likely affect teachers and school administrators across Texas and throughout the rest of the nation. Kelly Shackelford, Chief Counsel for Liberty Legal, asserts "Our children do not belong to the state; parents should, and do, have the God-given right to direct the upbringing and education of their own children."

 

 

 

 

 

 

British Lawmakers Approve Animal-Human Embryos

May 21 2008 Chruch Report

LONDON - British lawmakers have approved plans to create animal-human embryos for research. The British House of Commons has passed an animal-human hybrid law that pushes the U.K. deeper into science's uncharted waters than any other country in the world.

After just three hours of fiery debate, critics of the research fell far short of blocking this radical marriage of the human and animal species. By a lopsided 336 to 176, MP's granted scientists the license to create any kind of hybrid, including those derived from cloning, animal eggs and human sperm, genetic engineering, and more.

The proposed laws have provoked stormy debate, pitting Prime Minister Gordon Brown and scientists against religious leaders, anti-abortion campaigners and a large number of lawmakers.

Brown has said he believes scientists seeking to use mixed animal-human embryos for stem cell research into diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's are on a moral mission to improve and save lives.

The Roman Catholic Church has condemned the use of hybrid embryos as "monstrous" and immoral.

The process involves injecting a cow or rabbit egg with human DNA. A burst of electricity is then used to trick the egg into dividing so that it becomes an early embryo from which stem cells can be extracted.

 

 

 

Col 4:2  Continue in prayer, and watch in the same with thanksgiving.

2Ch 7:14  If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

Please pray for: Restoration of America's Christianity: Morality, Virtue and Strength in the place of apathy, Christian leaders, the peace of Israel, our President, the Texas / US Congress and the men and women of the United States Armed Services.

 

To Receive the BMA TMAC Watchman Report & E-Alerts mailing List. Send your name & e-mail address to: Howard Wilson hwilson@texasmoralaction.org  

Visit the Moral Action Committee of the BMA of Texas web site: http://texasmoralaction.org

Visit the BMA of Texas web site: Click Here

To make a donation to the Moral Action Committee of the BMA of Texas please click on this link