|
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]

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


|