Saturday, July 31, 2010
U.S. Taxpayers Funding Kenyan Pro-Abortion Campaign
U.S. Taxpayers Funding Kenyan Pro-Abortion Campaign
by Connie Hair
07/14/2010
Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) announced today he’s obtained documents showing U.S. taxpayers are funding a political campaign to pass the new Kenyan constitution that would legalize abortion.
The Office of the Inspector General of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) released documents showing two nongovernmental sponsored enterprises (NGOs) working to promote passage of a new Kenyan constitution have received $150,000 in grant money from American taxpayers.
“There is no doubt that the Obama Administration is funding the ‘yes’ campaign in Kenya,” said Smith, one of three U.S. lawmakers who have requested an investigation into U.S. activities leading up to the referendum on a proposed constitution that would liberalize the abortion law in Kenya.
According to the Smith press release, “A series of U.S. taxpayer-funded agreements awarded to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) by the Obama Administration clearly contradicts recent statements issued by the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi claiming neutrality in the Kenya constitutional referendum scheduled for a vote in early August."
“By funding NGOs charged with obtaining ‘yes’ votes, the Administration has crossed the line,” Smith said. “Directly supporting efforts to register ‘yes’ voters and ‘get out the yes vote’ means the U.S. government is running a political campaign in Kenya. U.S. taxpayer funds should not be used to support one side or the other.”
Reps. Smith, Ranking Member of the House Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee received as part of an ongoing dialogue on oversight a chart listing USAID funding recipients and a summary of their agreements.
Two organizations are receiving over $150,000 to “contribute to an ‘overrepresentation’ of the YES voters,” and five organizations have been charged with registering a total of 100,000 “for a YES vote” at the referendum. Other Kenyan groups are being given funding for similar YES vote efforts.
“The draft constitution, with its controversial provisions expanding access to abortion, is a matter for the Kenyan people to consider and decide,” Smith said. “The Obama administration should immediately withdraw all U.S. taxpayer funding used to buy votes and influence the outcome on the referendum.”
The chart provided by the USAID IG’s office showed funding to multiple NGOs working in favor of the pro-abortion constitution including:
• Provincial Peace Forum, Eastern Providence. $97,633.33 to “gain buy-in for the new proposed constitution by educating the professional elites in Isiolo South Constituency about its benefits and getting their commitment to use their influence to ensure people register and vote YES at the referendum.”
• Central Organization of Trade Unions, Kenya (COTU). $91,106.66 to “marshal a coalition of pro-Constitution individuals, institutions, and organizations to drum up political support for the Proposed Constitution by organizing a public rally at the historic Kamukunji Grounds, Nairobi.”
• Provincial Commissioner North Eastern Province. $99,220 for “one of a series of activities that aim to contribute to an ‘overrepresentation’ of the YES voters at the next referendum. Specifically, OTI will provide support to the office of the Provincial Commissioner (PC) in the form of transportation and fuel.”
• Kenya Muslim Youth Alliance (KMYA). $56,953.33 for “one of a series of activities that aim to contribute to an ‘overrepresentation’ of the YES voters at the next referendum. Specifically, OTI will provide support to Kenya Muslims Youth Alliance (KMYA) in the form of transportation and communications.”
Friday, July 30, 2010
Thursday, July 29, 2010
What Muslim Scientific Achievements?
What Muslim Scientific Achievements?
07/14/2010
One headline writer in Washington proclaimed the notion “Lost in Space.”
That’s how many reacted to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden’s comments that he’s been directed by President Obama to reach out to Muslim nations to honor their technological and scientific accomplishments as one of his agency’s priorities.
Bolden, in an interview with Al Jazeera, ignited significant backlash when he said that the President encouraged him to “find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contributions to science.”
The comments have sparked much debate in the blogosphere and among pundits but have gained little traction among mainstream media outlets where Bolden’s explanation of the President’s NASA goals have been underreported at best.
Opponents have questioned the administration’s commitment to space exploration and said using the program as an appeasement for Muslim nations is a misuse of the agency.
Daniel Pipes, director the Middle East Forum, echoed the sentiments of Obama critics in a blog post that questioned why the administration would use a space agency like NASA as a feel-good for foreign policy. He called Obama’s mandate to Bolden a “farcical” and “failed” attempt to win the hearts of Muslims.
“It is inordinately patronizing for Americans to make Muslims ‘feel good’ about the medieval contributions to science,” Mr. Pipes wrote. “This will lead to more resentment than gratitude.”
He added: “Muslims at present do lag in the sciences and the way to fix this is not condescension from NASA but some deep Muslim introspection. Put differently, accomplished scientists of Muslim origin—including NASA’s Farouk El-Baz, who is of Egyptian origins—do exist. The problem lies in societies, and includes everything from insufficient resources to poor education to the ravages of Islamism.”Pipes went on to point out that Obama has been steadily losing his public-opinion contest with Muslims—“his popularity in majority-Muslim countries hardly better than George W. Bush’s.”
Walid Phares, an author and senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, noted that the U.S. shouldn’t “be in the business of bringing religion, Islam or other to space development.”
Said Phares: “The initial policy of dealing with international relations in religious terms is faulty and in contradiction with international principles of human rights and also with the U.S. constitutional principles. The Obama Administration was very badly advised since day one on how to engage Muslim majority countries around the world.”
Mr. Phares took issue with the notion of that the “Muslim world” was one unit, separate from the rest of international society, noting that such a division “plays into the hands of jihadists.” He noted that with 1.2 billion Muslims living in 52 countries worldwide, their ranks are hugely diverse.
“The Obama narrative about addressing nation-states as one religious empire looks more like the medieval times than the 21st Century,” he said. “The U.S. can and should have a policy of technological support to as many countries as possible, including all the Muslim majority countries that needs it, inasmuch as other non-Muslim countries.
“Space exploration,” he added, “is a universal frontier, not a matter of public relations reflecting political interests. Talking about Muslims in space is like talking about Sunnis, Shia, Catholics, Mormons, or Taoists sent into orbit.
“This is a ridiculous concept. Those who enter a spaceship are humans not members of religious sects. I think what lays behind this medieval perception of space technology is a policy of partnership with Islamist regimes, most of which are oppressive of their own people.”
On Monday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs pushed back on Mr. Bolden’s comments and said the space agency administrator misspoke. “That was not his task and that’s not the task of NASA,” Mr. Gibbs said, adding that the remarks have been addressed.
That’s how many reacted to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden’s comments that he’s been directed by President Obama to reach out to Muslim nations to honor their technological and scientific accomplishments as one of his agency’s priorities.
Bolden, in an interview with Al Jazeera, ignited significant backlash when he said that the President encouraged him to “find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contributions to science.”
The comments have sparked much debate in the blogosphere and among pundits but have gained little traction among mainstream media outlets where Bolden’s explanation of the President’s NASA goals have been underreported at best.
Opponents have questioned the administration’s commitment to space exploration and said using the program as an appeasement for Muslim nations is a misuse of the agency.
Daniel Pipes, director the Middle East Forum, echoed the sentiments of Obama critics in a blog post that questioned why the administration would use a space agency like NASA as a feel-good for foreign policy. He called Obama’s mandate to Bolden a “farcical” and “failed” attempt to win the hearts of Muslims.
“It is inordinately patronizing for Americans to make Muslims ‘feel good’ about the medieval contributions to science,” Mr. Pipes wrote. “This will lead to more resentment than gratitude.”
He added: “Muslims at present do lag in the sciences and the way to fix this is not condescension from NASA but some deep Muslim introspection. Put differently, accomplished scientists of Muslim origin—including NASA’s Farouk El-Baz, who is of Egyptian origins—do exist. The problem lies in societies, and includes everything from insufficient resources to poor education to the ravages of Islamism.”Pipes went on to point out that Obama has been steadily losing his public-opinion contest with Muslims—“his popularity in majority-Muslim countries hardly better than George W. Bush’s.”
Walid Phares, an author and senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, noted that the U.S. shouldn’t “be in the business of bringing religion, Islam or other to space development.”
Said Phares: “The initial policy of dealing with international relations in religious terms is faulty and in contradiction with international principles of human rights and also with the U.S. constitutional principles. The Obama Administration was very badly advised since day one on how to engage Muslim majority countries around the world.”
Mr. Phares took issue with the notion of that the “Muslim world” was one unit, separate from the rest of international society, noting that such a division “plays into the hands of jihadists.” He noted that with 1.2 billion Muslims living in 52 countries worldwide, their ranks are hugely diverse.
“The Obama narrative about addressing nation-states as one religious empire looks more like the medieval times than the 21st Century,” he said. “The U.S. can and should have a policy of technological support to as many countries as possible, including all the Muslim majority countries that needs it, inasmuch as other non-Muslim countries.
“Space exploration,” he added, “is a universal frontier, not a matter of public relations reflecting political interests. Talking about Muslims in space is like talking about Sunnis, Shia, Catholics, Mormons, or Taoists sent into orbit.
“This is a ridiculous concept. Those who enter a spaceship are humans not members of religious sects. I think what lays behind this medieval perception of space technology is a policy of partnership with Islamist regimes, most of which are oppressive of their own people.”
On Monday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs pushed back on Mr. Bolden’s comments and said the space agency administrator misspoke. “That was not his task and that’s not the task of NASA,” Mr. Gibbs said, adding that the remarks have been addressed.
Andrea Billups is a freelance journalist and author based in Michigan.
Reader Comments: (
53
) Report Abusive PostI don’t give a damn what the blind Left Wing statists put out there, this president is failing because he is 1) NOT up to the job, and 2) The job he wants to do is contrary to our beliefs.
This man has no core�"and it is very, very plain to see. Even though I disagree with his policies and ideology, he has failed in key area by his own standards. The reason is simple�"HE CANNOT TAKE THE HEAT. HE CANNOT STOMACH THE UNCOMFORTABLE.
1. His campaign paragon, leaving Iraq completely by mid 2009�"failed. He couldn’t stomach the weighty ACT that went beyond his own speech. He fiddles.
2. Closing GITMO. This was his DAY-ONE promise…his first act as president. We are still there and he still has no plan. He could have left, sent them to his choice of places, but he couldn’t stomach the criticism. He fiddles.
3. His circuitous path on ‘don’t ask-don’t tell’ is a profile in cowardice. He has a belief, the power, and can’t stand taking the heat.
4. BP: an exercise in executive ineptness. He fiddles (and golfs).
There are many, many other examples. The dynamic is the same. Barack Obama loves being the focus, but he can’t make tough calls. He can’t even act on his beliefs.
Thank God he lacks guts. He is truly that man in women’s pants at the All Star Game. He can’t reach home plate, but he survives criticizing the way we do.
www.conservativemusiconline.com
This man has no core�"and it is very, very plain to see. Even though I disagree with his policies and ideology, he has failed in key area by his own standards. The reason is simple�"HE CANNOT TAKE THE HEAT. HE CANNOT STOMACH THE UNCOMFORTABLE.
1. His campaign paragon, leaving Iraq completely by mid 2009�"failed. He couldn’t stomach the weighty ACT that went beyond his own speech. He fiddles.
2. Closing GITMO. This was his DAY-ONE promise…his first act as president. We are still there and he still has no plan. He could have left, sent them to his choice of places, but he couldn’t stomach the criticism. He fiddles.
3. His circuitous path on ‘don’t ask-don’t tell’ is a profile in cowardice. He has a belief, the power, and can’t stand taking the heat.
4. BP: an exercise in executive ineptness. He fiddles (and golfs).
There are many, many other examples. The dynamic is the same. Barack Obama loves being the focus, but he can’t make tough calls. He can’t even act on his beliefs.
Thank God he lacks guts. He is truly that man in women’s pants at the All Star Game. He can’t reach home plate, but he survives criticizing the way we do.
www.conservativemusiconline.com
Jul 14, 2010 @ 05:35 AM
Lance Morrison, CA
Report Abusive PostThe Muslim world hasn't had a scientific contribution since they became Muslims in the 8th century
Jul 14, 2010 @ 07:28 AM
JamesJ, Lusby, MD
Report Abusive PostObama has singlehandedly destroyed our future by killing any new space projects at NASA. His act will destroy the east coast Florida economy,as we are now dependent on Russia to get our people into space.Now he wants to convert NASA into a propaganda machine to win the hearts and minds of Muslims.Bottom line; Obama is a traitor to American exceptional-ism,and a slave to foreign interests.
Jul 14, 2010 @ 07:44 AM
Boot out the Commies, Heartland
Report Abusive PostI thought this administration--like all other democratic administrations--fought to maintain the fundamental belief of the separation between church and state? Doesn't having a federally funded organization (like NASA) focus specifically on encouraging the individuals of one religion violate that fundamental belief? Or is it, "I can do what I want when I want because...I won."
Jul 14, 2010 @ 08:08 AM
The Triguy, because running is just not enough, Northern Virginia
Report Abusive PostThe only achievements the muslims have accomplished is the murder of innocent people. The Kenyan in the White House is one of the biggest jokes of the century. The only thing is, the destruction of America by this evil man and his cohorts is no joke.
Jul 14, 2010 @ 08:36 AM
Ed, Pennsylvania
Report Abusive PostI'm UTTERLY SHOCKED by the vehement anti-Muslim responses by your readers! It really is sad to see this degree of hatred and religious intolerance alive and well in America today. (If you doubt this statement whatsoever, just look at the comment above: "The only achievements the muslims have accomplished is the murder of innocent people.") What total ignorance! What hatred! This makes me sick.
Jul 14, 2010 @ 09:07 AM
Scott G, Buffalo, NY
Report Abusive PostIf I have to choose which man is lying without anything else to go on? I'd take the word of Bolden, a career Marine over that of a race hustler 'community disorganizer.'
Jul 14, 2010 @ 09:11 AM
David T, Olive Branch, MS
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Jihadists in Space!
AUDIO: Jihadists in Space!
07/14/2010
NASA has a plan in place to reach out to the 1.3 billion Muslims on Earth. No joke. But, is this money well spent? Was Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan wearing his Princess Leia earmuffs when he opened fire at Fort Hood? Was Umar Farouk Abdumutullab trying to detonate his Captain Kirk undies on Christmas day? Is Najibullah Zazi a big "Battlestar Galactica" fan? How about Faisal Shahzad, who tried to set off a bomb in Times Square? Was he reading "The Hitchhikers Guide to Blowing Up the Galaxy?" Our government would have more luck getting Romulans and Vulcans to reunite. Just months ago, Neil Armstrong slammed the Obama Administration’s decision to end the return-to-the-moon-program, calling the cuts ‘devastating.’ Well, we now know what that money will go towards in the future. What was once one small step for man will now be one giant leap for Hezbollah-kind.
Ultimate NASA ironies:
NASA found intelligent organisms on Mars, but there are none in the White House.
NASA took a giant leap for mankind on the moon, and we let NASA moon us here on Earth.
NASA mastered zero gravity, but the Obama administration can only float tax increases.
NASA made GPS devices a common product, but Obama is stuck on Left turns.
NASA made it possible to walk 40,000 miles out in space, but Obama can’t fly or drive to Louisiana.
NASA invented space suits in Texas, and Obama files law suits in Arizona.
www.conservativemusiconline.com
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
Judge Strikes Down Traditional Marriage
Judge Strikes Down Traditional Marriage
07/13/2010
Two opinions issued by Massachusetts federal Judge Joseph L. Tauro last Thursday represent only the most recent example of egregious judicial activism.
In them, he declared unconstitutional the federal definition of “marriage”—the union of one man and one woman. This traditional definition prompted the judge to opine that “there exists no fairly conceivable set of facts that could ground a rational relationship between [the federal definition of marriage] and a legitimate government objective.”
Thus did one of the bright lights of our federal judiciary hold that marriage as it has been defined for at least two millennia cannot be justified under any conceivable factual scenario. That wasn’t all: He added that “it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the [traditional definition of marriage].” Apparently, male-female biological, psychological, and emotional complementary has never caught the judge’s notice.
So how did we get to this bizarre, insulting opinion.
In the early 1990s “marriage” was defined as the union of one man and one woman all across America. However, great concern arose nationally when the Hawaii Supreme Court appeared to be on the verge of declaring its traditional marriage law unconstitutional. The fear lay in the possibility that a same-sex married couple from Hawaii might move to another state and successfully demand recognition of the Hawaii union under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
In response, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed overwhelmingly in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton. Most famously, it modified the reach of the Full Faith and Credit Clause so each state could determine its own marriage policy without concern that another jurisdiction—like Hawaii—could use the U.S. Constitution to overturn it. At present, 29 states have adopted constitutional amendments to explicitly define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Twelve additional states have statutory laws restricting marriage to this historic and natural definition. Thus, a total of 41 states explicitly define marriage traditionally either through their state constitutions or by statutes.
DOMA contained another provision, however, that defined “marriage” and “spouse” for federal purposes. It was this statutory enactment that was the subject of the legal challenges in Massachusetts.
This simple provision reads: “In determining the meaning of any act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” This definition is neither brimming with prejudice nor irrationality.
The House report accompanying DOMA noted that “‘marriage’ appears in more than 800 sections of federal statutes and regulations, and the word ‘spouse’ appears more than 3,100 times.” It added that with “very limited exceptions, these terms are not defined in federal law.”
The report also made clear that this federal definition would not “have any effect whatsoever on the manner in which any state…might choose to define these words.” No existing federal provision using the two terms had ever been enacted with anything other than the traditional meanings in mind.
Therefore, DOMA was not changing the law. Rather, with Hawaii seemingly preparing to redefine “marriage,” Congress believed the federal meaning of the terms should be made explicit.
DOMA’s constitutionality was widely accepted in 1996. In a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, Assistant Attorney General Andrew Fois of the Clinton Justice Department concluded that DOMA “would be sustained as constitutional” and that there were insufficient legal issues raised to “necessitate an appearance” by a Justice Department representative at the bill’s hearing.
In stark contrast, President Obama’s Justice Department has been undermining the law in its filings since the summer of 2009. The current administration has told various courts that it favors repeal of the law and considers DOMA “discriminatory.” It provided a primer in a footnote on the current literature showing that same-sex parenting is every bit the equal of male-female parenting. With a legal defense like that, who needs enemies?
The two decisions by Judge Tauro were so poorly reasoned that most observers believe they will certainly be appealed by the Obama Justice Department. Based on their previous statements, however, any effort to have Tauro reversed is likely to be half-hearted. Thus, it will be up to private parties and the states that have acted pursuant to DOMA to defend the traditional marriage definition as friends of the court. One can only hope and pray that sanity will prevail at the court of appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court.
In them, he declared unconstitutional the federal definition of “marriage”—the union of one man and one woman. This traditional definition prompted the judge to opine that “there exists no fairly conceivable set of facts that could ground a rational relationship between [the federal definition of marriage] and a legitimate government objective.”
Thus did one of the bright lights of our federal judiciary hold that marriage as it has been defined for at least two millennia cannot be justified under any conceivable factual scenario. That wasn’t all: He added that “it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the [traditional definition of marriage].” Apparently, male-female biological, psychological, and emotional complementary has never caught the judge’s notice.
So how did we get to this bizarre, insulting opinion.
In response, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed overwhelmingly in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton. Most famously, it modified the reach of the Full Faith and Credit Clause so each state could determine its own marriage policy without concern that another jurisdiction—like Hawaii—could use the U.S. Constitution to overturn it. At present, 29 states have adopted constitutional amendments to explicitly define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Twelve additional states have statutory laws restricting marriage to this historic and natural definition. Thus, a total of 41 states explicitly define marriage traditionally either through their state constitutions or by statutes.
DOMA contained another provision, however, that defined “marriage” and “spouse” for federal purposes. It was this statutory enactment that was the subject of the legal challenges in Massachusetts.
This simple provision reads: “In determining the meaning of any act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” This definition is neither brimming with prejudice nor irrationality.
The House report accompanying DOMA noted that “‘marriage’ appears in more than 800 sections of federal statutes and regulations, and the word ‘spouse’ appears more than 3,100 times.” It added that with “very limited exceptions, these terms are not defined in federal law.”
The report also made clear that this federal definition would not “have any effect whatsoever on the manner in which any state…might choose to define these words.” No existing federal provision using the two terms had ever been enacted with anything other than the traditional meanings in mind.
Therefore, DOMA was not changing the law. Rather, with Hawaii seemingly preparing to redefine “marriage,” Congress believed the federal meaning of the terms should be made explicit.
DOMA’s constitutionality was widely accepted in 1996. In a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, Assistant Attorney General Andrew Fois of the Clinton Justice Department concluded that DOMA “would be sustained as constitutional” and that there were insufficient legal issues raised to “necessitate an appearance” by a Justice Department representative at the bill’s hearing.
In stark contrast, President Obama’s Justice Department has been undermining the law in its filings since the summer of 2009. The current administration has told various courts that it favors repeal of the law and considers DOMA “discriminatory.” It provided a primer in a footnote on the current literature showing that same-sex parenting is every bit the equal of male-female parenting. With a legal defense like that, who needs enemies?
The two decisions by Judge Tauro were so poorly reasoned that most observers believe they will certainly be appealed by the Obama Justice Department. Based on their previous statements, however, any effort to have Tauro reversed is likely to be half-hearted. Thus, it will be up to private parties and the states that have acted pursuant to DOMA to defend the traditional marriage definition as friends of the court. One can only hope and pray that sanity will prevail at the court of appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
why parents need to know what your kids are listening to
While I've never been a Rap fan, Recently my son asked me if he could listen to some of my old Ozzie songs, at that moment I realized that some of the music I grew up to and loved was not music that I needed to listen more less my son. I told him that even though I didn't listen to anymore that it was not music that we as Christians should listen to. For though we are in the world, we are not to be of it. Parents let us be aware of what our children are listening to. Let us be aware of what we do for our children are watching us.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Obama Sabotages Defense of Marriage Act
Obama Sabotages Defense of Marriage Act
07/14/2010
Will federal judges misuse the Constitution to take away the people’s right to vote for marriage? Two federal court cases on opposite coasts, one in Boston, the other in San Francisco, represent a new front in the culture wars, an effort by gay marriage advocates to use the federal Constitution to require recognition of same-sex marriage.
In California, marriage supporters are waiting nervously for the decision by Judge Vaughn Walker about whether to uphold Prop 8, which defined marriage as one man and one woman in the state constitution. Prop 8 was passed by a majority of Californian voters in 2008, and was upheld by the California Supreme Court. Thirty other states from Wisconsin to Louisiana have similar marriage protection amendments in their state constitutions. A ruling overturning Prop 8 would likely threaten marriage laws in all 45 states that currently reject same-sex marriage.
Judge Joseph Tauro, a federal judge sitting in Boston, last week ruled in two cases against the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Dept. of HHS). DOMA, passed in 1996 by overwhelming bipartisan majorities, defines marriage as one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law and clarifies that no state will be forced to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. 
Judge Tauro’s twin rulings represents the first time a federal judge has ruled against the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the one federal law that protects marriage as the union of husband and wife, thus asserting the right of federal judges to overrule voters and their elected representatives on behalf of gay marriage. Legal experts agree that the judge’s core ruling, that Congress is not allowed to define marriage for purposes of federal law, is weak.
A series of federal court cases on polygamy back in the 19th Century clearly establish that the federal government has a right to define marriage for the purposes of federal law. America’s federalist system goes both ways: States are allowed to regulate marriage for the purposes of state law, but by the same token four judges in Massachusetts have no right to compel Congress to recognize gay unions as marriages for the purpose of federal law. Tauro leaned heavily on the 14th Amendment in both cases, charging that “equal protection” requires recognizing gay unions as marriages.
President Obama’s Justice Department sabotaged the defense of DOMA. This was a sham trial, in which both the parties attacked the law. The government attorneys under Obama charged with defending the law wanted it to be struck down.
Even the Washington Post noted how strange it is that Judge Tauro’s ruling never mentions the polygamy cases, and stranger still that apparently Obama’s Justice Department never raised the issue with him.
“In fairness to the judge, the Justice Department seems not to have presented these facts to the court, and they aren’t mentioned in the only historical document in the record before him, an affidavit from Harvard historian Nancy Cott from which Tauro quotes frequently,” noted Charles Lane in the Post.
But the blatant way in which Obama’s Justice Department “threw” the case is made even more blatant in the companion case, Gill v. OPM. When DOMA was passed, the legislation explicitly named four important purposes for the law. The Obama Justice Department repudiated them all as a rational basis for marriage law. As Judge Tauro’s ruling notes, “ The House report identifies four interests which Congress sought to advance through the enactment of DOMA: (1) encouraging responsible procreation and child-bearing, (2) defending and nurturing the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage, (3) defending traditional notions of morality, and (4) preserving scarce resources.”
However, Judge Tauro went on, “For purposes of this litigation, the government has disavowed Congress’s stated justifications for the statute and, therefore, they are addressed below only briefly.”
Let me emphasize that again: The purposes of DOMA that were explicit in the statute, including “responsible procreation,” were rejected first not by the judge but by Obama’s Justice Department. The attorney general, speaking for the people of the United States, said that responsible procreation has nothing to do with the purpose of marriage.
Even at the time the DOJ brief was filed, gay legal scholars like Professor Dale Carpenter called this a “gift” to the gay-marriage side. The evidence is clear: the U.S. government under President Obama colluded with ultra-liberal Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley to lose this case. (Yes, that Martha Coakley, the one Scott Brown defeated for the U.S. Senate.)
True to fashion, Obama’s misnamed Justice Department is refusing to say whether it will appeal the case. No doubt lawyers are trying to figure out how to prevent higher courts from reviewing and rejecting this weakly reasoned case.
In response, the National Organization for Marriage (which I helped found) is launching a 19-city Summer for Marriage bus tour to protest the judicial takeover of marriage.
“People have a right to vote for marriage, and we will not stand by and see activist judges or bought-and-paid-for politicians take away this right. We will fight back and we will win,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. He also calls for kicking off a new movement for a federal-marriage amendment, if the Supreme Court fails to uphold this basic civil right.
“Even some Republicans like Sen. John McCain and others voted against the FMA [Federal Marriage Amendment] because gay rights activists said it was unnecessary. Now just a few short years later, gay marriage advocates have filed not one but several federal court cases seeking to win from judges because they keep losing in the court of public opinion,” Brian said. “We call on Congress and the Supreme Court to protect the people’s right to vote for marriage.”
For more information on the bus tour and rallies at cities near you go to www.nationformarriage.org.
In California, marriage supporters are waiting nervously for the decision by Judge Vaughn Walker about whether to uphold Prop 8, which defined marriage as one man and one woman in the state constitution. Prop 8 was passed by a majority of Californian voters in 2008, and was upheld by the California Supreme Court. Thirty other states from Wisconsin to Louisiana have similar marriage protection amendments in their state constitutions. A ruling overturning Prop 8 would likely threaten marriage laws in all 45 states that currently reject same-sex marriage.
Judge Joseph Tauro, a federal judge sitting in Boston, last week ruled in two cases against the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Dept. of HHS). DOMA, passed in 1996 by overwhelming bipartisan majorities, defines marriage as one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law and clarifies that no state will be forced to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.
Judge Tauro’s twin rulings represents the first time a federal judge has ruled against the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the one federal law that protects marriage as the union of husband and wife, thus asserting the right of federal judges to overrule voters and their elected representatives on behalf of gay marriage. Legal experts agree that the judge’s core ruling, that Congress is not allowed to define marriage for purposes of federal law, is weak.
A series of federal court cases on polygamy back in the 19th Century clearly establish that the federal government has a right to define marriage for the purposes of federal law. America’s federalist system goes both ways: States are allowed to regulate marriage for the purposes of state law, but by the same token four judges in Massachusetts have no right to compel Congress to recognize gay unions as marriages for the purpose of federal law. Tauro leaned heavily on the 14th Amendment in both cases, charging that “equal protection” requires recognizing gay unions as marriages.
President Obama’s Justice Department sabotaged the defense of DOMA. This was a sham trial, in which both the parties attacked the law. The government attorneys under Obama charged with defending the law wanted it to be struck down.
Even the Washington Post noted how strange it is that Judge Tauro’s ruling never mentions the polygamy cases, and stranger still that apparently Obama’s Justice Department never raised the issue with him.
“In fairness to the judge, the Justice Department seems not to have presented these facts to the court, and they aren’t mentioned in the only historical document in the record before him, an affidavit from Harvard historian Nancy Cott from which Tauro quotes frequently,” noted Charles Lane in the Post.
But the blatant way in which Obama’s Justice Department “threw” the case is made even more blatant in the companion case, Gill v. OPM. When DOMA was passed, the legislation explicitly named four important purposes for the law. The Obama Justice Department repudiated them all as a rational basis for marriage law. As Judge Tauro’s ruling notes, “ The House report identifies four interests which Congress sought to advance through the enactment of DOMA: (1) encouraging responsible procreation and child-bearing, (2) defending and nurturing the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage, (3) defending traditional notions of morality, and (4) preserving scarce resources.”
However, Judge Tauro went on, “For purposes of this litigation, the government has disavowed Congress’s stated justifications for the statute and, therefore, they are addressed below only briefly.”
Let me emphasize that again: The purposes of DOMA that were explicit in the statute, including “responsible procreation,” were rejected first not by the judge but by Obama’s Justice Department. The attorney general, speaking for the people of the United States, said that responsible procreation has nothing to do with the purpose of marriage.
Even at the time the DOJ brief was filed, gay legal scholars like Professor Dale Carpenter called this a “gift” to the gay-marriage side. The evidence is clear: the U.S. government under President Obama colluded with ultra-liberal Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley to lose this case. (Yes, that Martha Coakley, the one Scott Brown defeated for the U.S. Senate.)
True to fashion, Obama’s misnamed Justice Department is refusing to say whether it will appeal the case. No doubt lawyers are trying to figure out how to prevent higher courts from reviewing and rejecting this weakly reasoned case.
In response, the National Organization for Marriage (which I helped found) is launching a 19-city Summer for Marriage bus tour to protest the judicial takeover of marriage.
“People have a right to vote for marriage, and we will not stand by and see activist judges or bought-and-paid-for politicians take away this right. We will fight back and we will win,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. He also calls for kicking off a new movement for a federal-marriage amendment, if the Supreme Court fails to uphold this basic civil right.
“Even some Republicans like Sen. John McCain and others voted against the FMA [Federal Marriage Amendment] because gay rights activists said it was unnecessary. Now just a few short years later, gay marriage advocates have filed not one but several federal court cases seeking to win from judges because they keep losing in the court of public opinion,” Brian said. “We call on Congress and the Supreme Court to protect the people’s right to vote for marriage.”
For more information on the bus tour and rallies at cities near you go to www.nationformarriage.org.
Ms. Gallagher is President of the National Organization for Marriage.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Teacher Fired for Teaching
Campus Outrage: Teacher Fired for Teaching
07/14/2010
I’ve seen a lot of university outrages in my decade of free-speech work on university campuses.
After all, we’re talking about a world where Christian students can be denied a grade and threatened with expulsion merely for stating in class that marriage is the union of a man and woman; where conservative students can be investigated for “desecrating the name of Allah” after stepping on the flags of terrorist organizations; where pro-life students can be censored because pro-life speech places them on a “pyramid of hate” and is just a few steps short of genocide; and (this is my personal favorite) where a student group can be told that showing the movie “Passion of the Christ” is too controversial even as the university hosts a play called “F***ing for Jesus.”
Few outrages, however, compare to that suffered by Dr. Kenneth Howell at the University of Illinois. Dr. Howell has been summarily fired—without even a chance to defend himself. What was his crime? Did he assault a student? Did he commit a felony? Admit to plagiarism or some other serious form of academic misconduct? Certainly not. Professor Howell taught Catholic thought in a class about Catholic thought.
Specifically, Professor Howell taught about Catholic doctrine regarding sexual morality, contrasting it with utilitarianism. He explained Catholic doctrine not just in class but in a separate e-mail to his students. This e-mail was forwarded across campus until it landed in the inbox of a particularly sensitive student who then sent a complaint to—among others—the director of the “LGBT Resource Center” and “the founder of the queer studies major.”
What did the university do? Did it tell the student that the university is a “marketplace of ideas” and that sometimes students will be exposed to concepts that will challenge, provoke, and—yes—offend them? Did it tell the student that a professor has the academic freedom to teach his subject? Did it tell the student that it would be a greater cause for concern if the professor was not teaching his subject, not doing the job he was hired to do?
No, the University of Illinois fired Dr. Howell.
In reviewing this case, one is reminded of nothing more than the playground phenomenon of offended children holding their hands over their ears and yelling, “I can’t hear you.” Except these children apparently have influence over state officials who have the power to make sure that no one on campus can hear Dr. Howell.
This is nothing more and nothing less than state-enforced ignorance. It is indoctrination, pure and simple. The University of Illinois—proud of its LGBT Resource Center—apparently doesn’t even want its students to know there are other ways to think about sexual morality. A student can learn a lot about “queer” sexuality at the university, but apparently they can’t learn that “queer sexuality” has its critics.
As the American Council of Trustees and Alumni has reported, the university is no stranger to in-class indoctrination. (See Page 15 of the report.) I suppose, however, that even teaching students about competing ideas interferes with the effort to ensure that students graduate with the appropriate views. After all, if students know what others think, they might actually dissent from the party line.
I attended a Christian college, one whose very mission was to integrate the Christian faith with academic excellence, yet we had no fear of learning about opposing ideas. In fact, one can’t possibly receive an actual education without understanding the competing positions in the great moral issues of our time. At Lipscomb University, I read “LGBT theorists,” read atheists, read Muslims … indeed, it would have appalled my professors had I graduated without knowing a reasonably full range of arguments surrounding culturally important issues.
But then again, we weren’t weak. We could handle a debate. At Illinois? To borrow the words of Alan Charles Kors, some of the university’s students must be too weak to live with freedom. Illinois students have to be protected from the ideas they don’t like or they’ll… what? Whine? Complain? Need therapy?
The student who filed the complaint against Dr. Howell signed off with a dramatic flourish, saying, “I didn’t go to Notre Dame for a reason.” How true. He couldn’t handle Notre Dame.
After all, we’re talking about a world where Christian students can be denied a grade and threatened with expulsion merely for stating in class that marriage is the union of a man and woman; where conservative students can be investigated for “desecrating the name of Allah” after stepping on the flags of terrorist organizations; where pro-life students can be censored because pro-life speech places them on a “pyramid of hate” and is just a few steps short of genocide; and (this is my personal favorite) where a student group can be told that showing the movie “Passion of the Christ” is too controversial even as the university hosts a play called “F***ing for Jesus.”
Few outrages, however, compare to that suffered by Dr. Kenneth Howell at the University of Illinois. Dr. Howell has been summarily fired—without even a chance to defend himself.
Specifically, Professor Howell taught about Catholic doctrine regarding sexual morality, contrasting it with utilitarianism. He explained Catholic doctrine not just in class but in a separate e-mail to his students. This e-mail was forwarded across campus until it landed in the inbox of a particularly sensitive student who then sent a complaint to—among others—the director of the “LGBT Resource Center” and “the founder of the queer studies major.”
What did the university do? Did it tell the student that the university is a “marketplace of ideas” and that sometimes students will be exposed to concepts that will challenge, provoke, and—yes—offend them? Did it tell the student that a professor has the academic freedom to teach his subject? Did it tell the student that it would be a greater cause for concern if the professor was not teaching his subject, not doing the job he was hired to do?
No, the University of Illinois fired Dr. Howell.
In reviewing this case, one is reminded of nothing more than the playground phenomenon of offended children holding their hands over their ears and yelling, “I can’t hear you.” Except these children apparently have influence over state officials who have the power to make sure that no one on campus can hear Dr. Howell.
This is nothing more and nothing less than state-enforced ignorance. It is indoctrination, pure and simple. The University of Illinois—proud of its LGBT Resource Center—apparently doesn’t even want its students to know there are other ways to think about sexual morality. A student can learn a lot about “queer” sexuality at the university, but apparently they can’t learn that “queer sexuality” has its critics.
As the American Council of Trustees and Alumni has reported, the university is no stranger to in-class indoctrination. (See Page 15 of the report.) I suppose, however, that even teaching students about competing ideas interferes with the effort to ensure that students graduate with the appropriate views. After all, if students know what others think, they might actually dissent from the party line.
I attended a Christian college, one whose very mission was to integrate the Christian faith with academic excellence, yet we had no fear of learning about opposing ideas. In fact, one can’t possibly receive an actual education without understanding the competing positions in the great moral issues of our time. At Lipscomb University, I read “LGBT theorists,” read atheists, read Muslims … indeed, it would have appalled my professors had I graduated without knowing a reasonably full range of arguments surrounding culturally important issues.
But then again, we weren’t weak. We could handle a debate. At Illinois? To borrow the words of Alan Charles Kors, some of the university’s students must be too weak to live with freedom. Illinois students have to be protected from the ideas they don’t like or they’ll… what? Whine? Complain? Need therapy?
The student who filed the complaint against Dr. Howell signed off with a dramatic flourish, saying, “I didn’t go to Notre Dame for a reason.” How true. He couldn’t handle Notre Dame.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Monday, July 19, 2010
AMTRAK
Dear Dr. Henry, If there was ever proof that the Obama Administration has gone off the rails, it's Amtrak. For the first time in the train service's history, Amtrak has decided to spend a quarter-million dollars recruiting homosexual passengers. As you may know, Amtrak isn't a private business. This is a government-run business, meaning that this $250,000 is taken directly from taxpayers' pockets. In a very real sense, this ad campaign is a federal endorsement of homosexual behavior -- one of the most serious public health threats in America. Using taxpayer funds to promote this ad campaign is insulting to the millions of Americans who have deeply-held moral convictions against homosexuality. Yet Washington is targeting the demographically small homosexual population-probably because marketing surveys suggest it is also one of the richest. So let's be honest. This Administration is more interested in riding the gravy train than getting the culture back on track. Please contact senior officials at Amtrak and ask them to stop this campaign using your tax dollars! Thank you and God bless you. Sincerely,  Tony Perkins President |
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Friday, July 16, 2010
Judge Strikes Down Traditional Marriage
By Chris GacekTwo opinions issued by Massachusetts federal Judge Joseph L. Tauro last Thursday represent only the most recent example of egregious judicial activism.
In them, he declared unconstitutional the federal definition of "marriage"-the union of one man and one woman. This traditional definition prompted the judge to opine that "there exists no fairly conceivable set of facts that could ground a rational relationship between [the federal definition of marriage] and a legitimate government objective."
Thus did one of the bright lights of our federal judiciary hold that marriage as it has been defined for at least two millennia cannot be justified under any conceivable factual scenario. That wasn't all: He added that "it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the [traditional definition of marriage]." Apparently, male-female biological, psychological, and emotional complementary has never caught the judge's notice.
So how did we get to this bizarre, insulting opinion.
In the early 1990s "marriage" was defined as the union of one man and one woman all across America. However, great concern arose nationally when the Hawaii Supreme Court appeared to be on the verge of declaring its traditional marriage law unconstitutional. The fear lay in the possibility that a same-sex married couple from Hawaii might move to another state and successfully demand recognition of the Hawaii union under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
In response, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed overwhelmingly in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton. Most famously, it modified the reach of the Full Faith and Credit Clause so each state could determine its own marriage policy without concern that another jurisdiction-like Hawaii-could use the U.S. Constitution to overturn it. At present, 29 states have adopted constitutional amendments to explicitly define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Twelve additional states have statutory laws restricting marriage to this historic and natural definition. Thus, a total of 41 states explicitly define marriage traditionally either through their state constitutions or by statutes.
DOMA contained another provision, however, that defined "marriage" and "spouse" for federal purposes. It was this statutory enactment that was the subject of the legal challenges in Massachusetts.
This simple provision reads: "In determining the meaning of any act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." This definition is neither brimming with prejudice nor irrationality.
The House report accompanying DOMA noted that "'marriage' appears in more than 800 sections of federal statutes and regulations, and the word 'spouse' appears more than 3,100 times." It added that with "very limited exceptions, these terms are not defined in federal law."
The report also made clear that this federal definition would not "have any effect whatsoever on the manner in which any state...might choose to define these words." No existing federal provision using the two terms had ever been enacted with anything other than the traditional meanings in mind.
Therefore, DOMA was not changing the law. Rather, with Hawaii seemingly preparing to redefine "marriage," Congress believed the federal meaning of the terms should be made explicit.
DOMA's constitutionality was widely accepted in 1996. In a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, Assistant Attorney General Andrew Fois of the Clinton Justice Department concluded that DOMA "would be sustained as constitutional" and that there were insufficient legal issues raised to "necessitate an appearance" by a Justice Department representative at the bill's hearing.
In stark contrast, President Obama's Justice Department has been undermining the law in its filings since the summer of 2009. The current administration has told various courts that it favors repeal of the law and considers DOMA "discriminatory." It provided a primer in a footnote on the current literature showing that same-sex parenting is every bit the equal of male-female parenting. With a legal defense like that, who needs enemies?
The two decisions by Judge Tauro were so poorly reasoned that most observers believe they will certainly be appealed by the Obama Justice Department. Based on their previous statements, however, any effort to have Tauro reversed is likely to be half-hearted. Thus, it will be up to private parties and the states that have acted pursuant to DOMA to defend the traditional marriage definition as friends of the court. One can only hope and pray that sanity will prevail at the court of appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court.
Chris Gacek, Ph.D./J.D., is senior fellow at the Family Research Council.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Televangelist Counters Ground Zero Mosque with Christian Center
By Nathan Black|Christian Post Reporter
In response to a proposed mosque blocks from ground zero, controversial televangelist Bill Keller announced on Tuesday that he plans to open a Christian center nearby.
Ground Zero
View Full Image
(Photo: AP Images / Mark Lennihan)
This aerial photo of April 20, 2010, shows the New York city block, lower right, where a 13-story mosque is planned for construction two blocks north of the World Trade Center site, center left. The plan for the $100 million mosque and cultural center received initial support on Wednesday, May 5, 2010 from community board 1 in Lower Manhattan.
Related
* Mosque Plan Near 9/11 Site Is 'Indecent,' Says Ex-Muslim
* Thousands Rally Against Ground Zero 'Mega Mosque'
* Texas Evangelical: We Need to Get to Know Muslims
"How do you battle the darkness? With the light!" he states on the 9/11 Christian Center at Ground Zero website.
Rather than hold protests over the Cordoba House – a 15-story facility that project leaders claim will promote tolerance, help improve Muslim-West relations, and serve as a platform for people of all backgrounds to come together – Keller says he wants to take "an ongoing stand" against the mosque in a meaningful way.
The Christian center will serve to "combat this new evil being constructed near ground zero" and "bring people the Truth of God's Word and the love and hope of Jesus Christ," the fire-and-brimstone preacher states.
A New York community board gave the green light in May for the construction of a mosque and Islamic center, a more than $100 million project, at the site of the former Burlington Coat Factory in lower Manhattan. Thousands of people have protested the project, calling it demeaning and offensive to the nearly 3,000 victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
On Tuesday, the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission held a hearing where opponents of the mosque argued for landmark status of the building on Park Place. A landmark designation would make it difficult for Muslim groups to develop their mosque and center there. Those in favor of landmark status argued that aside from being a 152-year-old building, the old Burlington building also was struck by a piece of one of the hijacked airplanes.
"To deprive this building of landmark status is to allow for a citadel of Islamic supremacy to be erected in its place," said Andrea Quinn, a freelance audio technician from Queens, as reported by The Associated Press.
The commission is expected to vote later this summer.
Meanwhile, Keller's 9/11 Christian Center is scheduled to open on Sept. 5 at the Embassy Suites New York. The center, an $8 million project, will move to a permanent facility on January 1.
"If the Muslims can without conscience build a mosque to propagate their religion of violence and hated a block away from where their Muslim brothers perpetrated the greatest act of terror on U.S. soil, killing 3,000 innocent souls in the process, we can open a place where people can come to hear the truth of the Bible and learn about the peace, love, and saving grace of Jesus Christ," said Keller, who currently leads Liveprayer.com, in a statement.
For years, Keller has been outspoken in his criticism of Islam, calling the religion "a 1400-year-old lie from hell" that was advanced through violence, hatred and death. Such statements led to the cancellation of his nightly TV program on a CBS-owned station in Tampa, Fla. He also recorded a video addressed to Osama Bin Laden in 2006, urging him to "renounce the lies of Islam" and come to faith in Christ.
Keller paints the Christian center as essentially the antithesis of the Islamic center.
"The mission is simple," Keller explains. "Have a place at ground zero where people can come to hear the real uncompromised Truth right from God's Word, and find the only true hope there is, faith in Jesus Christ!!!
"We will combat the lies of this world and Islam with the truth. We will combat the hatred of this world and Islam with love. We will combat the violence of this world and Islam with peace. Finally, we will combat eternal death this world and Islam brings with life everlasting!!!"
But not all Christians are on the same boat as Keller.
Julie Clawson, author of Everyday Justice: The Global Impact of Our Daily Choices, wrote in Sojourners magazine that it is "pure fear of the other" that is sparking some of the opposition.
And she sees Christians spewing more hate than love and more judgment than forgiveness.
"[E]ven in the church we daily judge Muslims by the actions of a few of its members," she wrote. "So while we applaud the Amish women for their acts of forgiveness, the fear and hatred sparked by the events of 9/11 still inform the average American’s opinion of Muslims. So to the protesters, the building of a Muslim center and mosque so near the site of Ground Zero is just another act of violence – a threat to American supremacy. There is no forgiveness of the terrorists and the grudge against them is extended to all Muslims.
"It is heartbreaking knowing that many of the protesters are there claiming to represent Jesus while they scream their message of hate."
Services at the 9/11 Christian Center will be held every Sunday at the Embassy Suites. When it moves into its permanent facility next year, services will be held seven days a week and visitors will be welcome to stop in and pray each day. The Liveprayer program is also scheduled to air each day in the New York City TV market beginning next year. The center is not a church, Keller clarified.
By Nathan Black|Christian Post Reporter
In response to a proposed mosque blocks from ground zero, controversial televangelist Bill Keller announced on Tuesday that he plans to open a Christian center nearby.
Ground Zero
View Full Image
(Photo: AP Images / Mark Lennihan)
This aerial photo of April 20, 2010, shows the New York city block, lower right, where a 13-story mosque is planned for construction two blocks north of the World Trade Center site, center left. The plan for the $100 million mosque and cultural center received initial support on Wednesday, May 5, 2010 from community board 1 in Lower Manhattan.
Related
* Mosque Plan Near 9/11 Site Is 'Indecent,' Says Ex-Muslim
* Thousands Rally Against Ground Zero 'Mega Mosque'
* Texas Evangelical: We Need to Get to Know Muslims
"How do you battle the darkness? With the light!" he states on the 9/11 Christian Center at Ground Zero website.
Rather than hold protests over the Cordoba House – a 15-story facility that project leaders claim will promote tolerance, help improve Muslim-West relations, and serve as a platform for people of all backgrounds to come together – Keller says he wants to take "an ongoing stand" against the mosque in a meaningful way.
The Christian center will serve to "combat this new evil being constructed near ground zero" and "bring people the Truth of God's Word and the love and hope of Jesus Christ," the fire-and-brimstone preacher states.
A New York community board gave the green light in May for the construction of a mosque and Islamic center, a more than $100 million project, at the site of the former Burlington Coat Factory in lower Manhattan. Thousands of people have protested the project, calling it demeaning and offensive to the nearly 3,000 victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
On Tuesday, the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission held a hearing where opponents of the mosque argued for landmark status of the building on Park Place. A landmark designation would make it difficult for Muslim groups to develop their mosque and center there. Those in favor of landmark status argued that aside from being a 152-year-old building, the old Burlington building also was struck by a piece of one of the hijacked airplanes.
"To deprive this building of landmark status is to allow for a citadel of Islamic supremacy to be erected in its place," said Andrea Quinn, a freelance audio technician from Queens, as reported by The Associated Press.
The commission is expected to vote later this summer.
Meanwhile, Keller's 9/11 Christian Center is scheduled to open on Sept. 5 at the Embassy Suites New York. The center, an $8 million project, will move to a permanent facility on January 1.
"If the Muslims can without conscience build a mosque to propagate their religion of violence and hated a block away from where their Muslim brothers perpetrated the greatest act of terror on U.S. soil, killing 3,000 innocent souls in the process, we can open a place where people can come to hear the truth of the Bible and learn about the peace, love, and saving grace of Jesus Christ," said Keller, who currently leads Liveprayer.com, in a statement.
For years, Keller has been outspoken in his criticism of Islam, calling the religion "a 1400-year-old lie from hell" that was advanced through violence, hatred and death. Such statements led to the cancellation of his nightly TV program on a CBS-owned station in Tampa, Fla. He also recorded a video addressed to Osama Bin Laden in 2006, urging him to "renounce the lies of Islam" and come to faith in Christ.
Keller paints the Christian center as essentially the antithesis of the Islamic center.
"The mission is simple," Keller explains. "Have a place at ground zero where people can come to hear the real uncompromised Truth right from God's Word, and find the only true hope there is, faith in Jesus Christ!!!
"We will combat the lies of this world and Islam with the truth. We will combat the hatred of this world and Islam with love. We will combat the violence of this world and Islam with peace. Finally, we will combat eternal death this world and Islam brings with life everlasting!!!"
But not all Christians are on the same boat as Keller.
Julie Clawson, author of Everyday Justice: The Global Impact of Our Daily Choices, wrote in Sojourners magazine that it is "pure fear of the other" that is sparking some of the opposition.
And she sees Christians spewing more hate than love and more judgment than forgiveness.
"[E]ven in the church we daily judge Muslims by the actions of a few of its members," she wrote. "So while we applaud the Amish women for their acts of forgiveness, the fear and hatred sparked by the events of 9/11 still inform the average American’s opinion of Muslims. So to the protesters, the building of a Muslim center and mosque so near the site of Ground Zero is just another act of violence – a threat to American supremacy. There is no forgiveness of the terrorists and the grudge against them is extended to all Muslims.
"It is heartbreaking knowing that many of the protesters are there claiming to represent Jesus while they scream their message of hate."
Services at the 9/11 Christian Center will be held every Sunday at the Embassy Suites. When it moves into its permanent facility next year, services will be held seven days a week and visitors will be welcome to stop in and pray each day. The Liveprayer program is also scheduled to air each day in the New York City TV market beginning next year. The center is not a church, Keller clarified.
Moralistic Therapeutic Deism--the New American Religion
Moralistic Therapeutic Deism--the New American Religion
By R. Albert Mohler, Jr.|Christian Post Columnist
When Christian Smith and his fellow researchers with the National Study of Youth and Religion at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill took a close look at the religious beliefs held by American teenagers, they found that the faith held and described by most adolescents came down to something the researchers identified as "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism."
As described by Smith and his team, Moralistic Therapeutic Deism consists of beliefs like these: 1. "A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth." 2. "God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions." 3. "The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself." 4. "God does not need to be particularly involved in one's life except when God is needed to resolve a problem." 5. "Good people go to heaven when they die."
That, in sum, is the creed to which much adolescent faith can be reduced. After conducting more than 3,000 interviews with American adolescents, the researchers reported that, when it came to the most crucial questions of faith and beliefs, many adolescents responded with a shrug and "whatever."
As a matter of fact, the researchers, whose report is summarized in Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Eyes of American Teenagers by Christian Smith with Melinda Lundquist Denton, found that American teenagers are incredibly inarticulate about their religious beliefs, and most are virtually unable to offer any serious theological understanding. As Smith reports, "To the extent that the teens we interviewed did manage to articulate what they understood and believed religiously, it became clear that most religious teenagers either do not really comprehend what their own religious traditions say they are supposed to believe, or they do understand it and simply do not care to believe it. Either way, it is apparent that most religiously affiliated U.S. teens are not particularly interested in espousing and upholding the beliefs of their faith traditions, or that their communities of faith are failing in attempts to educate their youth, or both."
As the researchers explained, "For most teens, nobody has to do anything in life, including anything to do with religion. 'Whatever' is just fine, if that's what a person wants."
The casual "whatever" that marks so much of the American moral and theological landscapes--adolescent and otherwise--is a substitute for serious and responsible thinking. More importantly, it is a verbal cover for an embrace of relativism. Accordingly, "most religious teenager's opinions and views--one can hardly call them worldviews--are vague, limited, and often quite at variance with the actual teachings of their own religion."
The kind of responses found among many teenagers indicates a vast emptiness at the heart of their understanding. When a teenager says, "I believe there is a God and stuff," this hardly represents a profound theological commitment.
Amazingly, teenagers are not inarticulate in general. As the researchers found, "Many teenagers know abundant details about the lives of favorite musicians and television stars or about what it takes to get into a good college, but most are not very clear on who Moses and Jesus were." The obvious conclusion: "This suggests that a strong, visible, salient, or intentional faith is not operating in the foreground of most teenager's lives."
One other aspect of this study deserves attention at this point. The researchers, who conducted thousands of hours of interviews with a carefully identified spectrum of teenagers, discovered that for many of these teens, the interview itself was the first time they had ever discussed a theological question with an adult. What does this say about our churches? What does this say about this generation of parents?
In the end, this study indicates that American teenagers are heavily influenced by the ideology of individualism that has so profoundly shaped the larger culture. This bleeds over into a reflexive non-judgmentalism and a reluctance to suggest that anyone might actually be wrong in matters of faith and belief. Yet, these teenagers are unable to live with a full-blown relativism.
The researchers note that many responses fall along very moralistic lines--but they reserve their most non-judgmental attitudes for matters of theological conviction and belief. Some go so far as to suggest that there are no "right" answers in matters of doctrine and theological conviction.
The "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism" that these researchers identify as the most fundamental faith posture and belief system of American teenagers appears, in a larger sense, to reflect the culture as a whole. Clearly, this generalized conception of a belief system is what appears to characterize the beliefs of vast millions of Americans, both young and old.
This is an important missiological observation--a point of analysis that goes far beyond sociology. As Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton explained, Moralistic Therapeutic Deism "is about inculcating a moralistic approach to life. It teaches that central to living a good and happy life is being a good, moral person. That means being nice, kind, pleasant, respectful, responsible, at work on self-improvement, taking care of one's health, and doing one's best to be successful." In a very real sense, that appears to be true of the faith commitment, insofar as this can be described as a faith commitment, held by a large percentage of Americans. These individuals, whatever their age, believe that religion should be centered in being "nice"--a posture that many believe is directly violated by assertions of strong theological conviction.
Moralistic Therapeutic Deism is also "about providing therapeutic benefits to its adherents." As the researchers explained, "This is not a religion of repentance from sin, of keeping the Sabbath, of living as a servant of sovereign divinity, of steadfastly saying one's prayers, of faithfully observing high holy days, of building character through suffering, of basking in God's love and grace, of spending oneself in gratitude and love for the cause of social justice, et cetera. Rather, what appears to be the actual dominant religion among U.S. teenagers is centrally about feeling good, happy, secure, at peace. It is about attaining subjective well-being, being able to resolve problems, and getting along amiably with other people."
In addition, Moralistic Therapeutic Deism presents a unique understanding of God. As Smith explains, this amorphous faith "is about belief in a particular kind of God: one who exists, created the world, and defines our general moral order, but not one who is particularly personally involved in one's affairs--especially affairs in which one would prefer not to have God involved. Most of the time, the God of this faith keeps a safe distance."
Smith and his colleagues recognize that the deity behind Moralistic Therapeutic Deism is very much like the deistic God of the 18th-century philosophers. This is not the God who thunders from the mountain, nor a God who will serve as judge. This undemanding deity is more interested in solving our problems and in making people happy. "In short, God is something like a combination Divine Butler and Cosmic Therapist: he is always on call, takes care of any problems that arise, professionally helps his people to feel better about themselves, and does not become too personally involved in the process."
Obviously, Moralistic Therapeutic Deism is not an organized faith. This belief system has no denominational headquarters and no mailing address. Nevertheless, it has millions and millions of devotees across the United States and other advanced cultures, where subtle cultural shifts have produced a context in which belief in such an undemanding deity makes sense. Furthermore, this deity does not challenge the most basic self-centered assumptions of our postmodern age. Particularly when it comes to so-called "lifestyle" issues, this God is exceedingly tolerant and this religion is radically undemanding.
As sociologists, Smith and his team suggest that this Moralistic Therapeutic Deism may now constitute something like a dominant civil religion that constitutes the belief system for the culture at large. Thus, this basic conception may be analogous to what other researchers have identified as "lived religion" as experienced by the mainstream culture.
Moving to even deeper issues, these researches claim that Moralistic Therapeutic Deism is "colonizing" Christianity itself, as this new civil religion seduces converts who never have to leave their congregations and Christian identification as they embrace this new faith and all of its undemanding dimensions.
Consider this remarkable assessment: "Other more accomplished scholars in these areas will have to examine and evaluate these possibilities in greater depth. But we can say here that we have come with some confidence to believe that a significant part of Christianity in the United States is actually [only] tenuously Christian in any sense that is seriously connected to the actual historical Christian tradition, but is rather substantially morphed into Christianity's misbegotten step-cousin, Christian Moralistic Therapeutic Deism."
They argue that this distortion of Christianity has taken root not only in the minds of individuals, but also "within the structures of at least some Christian organizations and institutions."
How can you tell? "The language, and therefore experience, of Trinity, holiness, sin, grace, justification, sanctification, church, . . . and heaven and hell appear, among most Christian teenagers in the United States at the very least, to be supplanted by the language of happiness, niceness, and an earned heavenly reward."
Does this mean that America is becoming more secularized? Not necessarily. These researchers assert that Christianity is either degenerating into a pathetic version of itself or, more significantly, Christianity is actively being colonized and displaced by a quite different religious faith.
This radical transformation of Christian theology and Christian belief replaces the sovereignty of God with the sovereignty of the self. In this therapeutic age, human problems are reduced to pathologies in need of a treatment plan. Sin is simply excluded from the picture, and doctrines as central as the wrath and justice of God are discarded as out of step with the times and unhelpful to the project of self-actualization.
All this means is that teenagers have been listening carefully. They have been observing their parents in the larger culture with diligence and insight. They understand just how little their parents really believe and just how much many of their churches and Christian institutions have accommodated themselves to the dominant culture. They sense the degree to which theological conviction has been sacrificed on the altar of individualism and a relativistic understanding of truth. They have learned from their elders that self-improvement is the one great moral imperative to which all are accountable, and they have observed the fact that the highest aspiration of those who shape this culture is to find happiness, security, and meaning in life.
This research project demands the attention of every thinking Christian. Those who are prone to dismiss sociological analysis as irrelevant will miss the point. We must now look at the United States of America as missiologists once viewed nations that had never heard the gospel. Indeed, our missiological challenge may be even greater than the confrontation with paganism, for we face a succession of generations who have transformed Christianity into something that bears no resemblance to the faith revealed in the Bible. The faith "once delivered to the saints" is no longer even known, not only by American teenagers, but by most of their parents. Millions of Americans believe they are Christians, simply because they have some historic tie to a Christian denomination or identity.
We now face the challenge of evangelizing a nation that largely considers itself Christian, overwhelmingly believes in some deity, considers itself fervently religious, but has virtually no connection to historic Christianity. Christian Smith and his colleagues have performed an enormous service for the church of the Lord Jesus Christ in identifying Moralistic Therapeutic Deism as the dominant religion of this American age. Our responsibility is to prepare the church to respond to this new religion, understanding that it represents the greatest competitor to biblical Christianity. More urgently, this study should warn us all that our failure to teach this generation of teenagers the realities and convictions of biblical Christianity will mean that their children will know even less and will be even more readily seduced by this new form of paganism. This study offers irrefutable evidence of the challenge we now face. As the motto reminds us, "Knowledge is power."
By R. Albert Mohler, Jr.|Christian Post Columnist
When Christian Smith and his fellow researchers with the National Study of Youth and Religion at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill took a close look at the religious beliefs held by American teenagers, they found that the faith held and described by most adolescents came down to something the researchers identified as "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism."
As described by Smith and his team, Moralistic Therapeutic Deism consists of beliefs like these: 1. "A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth." 2. "God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions." 3. "The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself." 4. "God does not need to be particularly involved in one's life except when God is needed to resolve a problem." 5. "Good people go to heaven when they die."
That, in sum, is the creed to which much adolescent faith can be reduced. After conducting more than 3,000 interviews with American adolescents, the researchers reported that, when it came to the most crucial questions of faith and beliefs, many adolescents responded with a shrug and "whatever."
As a matter of fact, the researchers, whose report is summarized in Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Eyes of American Teenagers by Christian Smith with Melinda Lundquist Denton, found that American teenagers are incredibly inarticulate about their religious beliefs, and most are virtually unable to offer any serious theological understanding. As Smith reports, "To the extent that the teens we interviewed did manage to articulate what they understood and believed religiously, it became clear that most religious teenagers either do not really comprehend what their own religious traditions say they are supposed to believe, or they do understand it and simply do not care to believe it. Either way, it is apparent that most religiously affiliated U.S. teens are not particularly interested in espousing and upholding the beliefs of their faith traditions, or that their communities of faith are failing in attempts to educate their youth, or both."
As the researchers explained, "For most teens, nobody has to do anything in life, including anything to do with religion. 'Whatever' is just fine, if that's what a person wants."
The casual "whatever" that marks so much of the American moral and theological landscapes--adolescent and otherwise--is a substitute for serious and responsible thinking. More importantly, it is a verbal cover for an embrace of relativism. Accordingly, "most religious teenager's opinions and views--one can hardly call them worldviews--are vague, limited, and often quite at variance with the actual teachings of their own religion."
The kind of responses found among many teenagers indicates a vast emptiness at the heart of their understanding. When a teenager says, "I believe there is a God and stuff," this hardly represents a profound theological commitment.
Amazingly, teenagers are not inarticulate in general. As the researchers found, "Many teenagers know abundant details about the lives of favorite musicians and television stars or about what it takes to get into a good college, but most are not very clear on who Moses and Jesus were." The obvious conclusion: "This suggests that a strong, visible, salient, or intentional faith is not operating in the foreground of most teenager's lives."
One other aspect of this study deserves attention at this point. The researchers, who conducted thousands of hours of interviews with a carefully identified spectrum of teenagers, discovered that for many of these teens, the interview itself was the first time they had ever discussed a theological question with an adult. What does this say about our churches? What does this say about this generation of parents?
In the end, this study indicates that American teenagers are heavily influenced by the ideology of individualism that has so profoundly shaped the larger culture. This bleeds over into a reflexive non-judgmentalism and a reluctance to suggest that anyone might actually be wrong in matters of faith and belief. Yet, these teenagers are unable to live with a full-blown relativism.
The researchers note that many responses fall along very moralistic lines--but they reserve their most non-judgmental attitudes for matters of theological conviction and belief. Some go so far as to suggest that there are no "right" answers in matters of doctrine and theological conviction.
The "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism" that these researchers identify as the most fundamental faith posture and belief system of American teenagers appears, in a larger sense, to reflect the culture as a whole. Clearly, this generalized conception of a belief system is what appears to characterize the beliefs of vast millions of Americans, both young and old.
This is an important missiological observation--a point of analysis that goes far beyond sociology. As Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton explained, Moralistic Therapeutic Deism "is about inculcating a moralistic approach to life. It teaches that central to living a good and happy life is being a good, moral person. That means being nice, kind, pleasant, respectful, responsible, at work on self-improvement, taking care of one's health, and doing one's best to be successful." In a very real sense, that appears to be true of the faith commitment, insofar as this can be described as a faith commitment, held by a large percentage of Americans. These individuals, whatever their age, believe that religion should be centered in being "nice"--a posture that many believe is directly violated by assertions of strong theological conviction.
Moralistic Therapeutic Deism is also "about providing therapeutic benefits to its adherents." As the researchers explained, "This is not a religion of repentance from sin, of keeping the Sabbath, of living as a servant of sovereign divinity, of steadfastly saying one's prayers, of faithfully observing high holy days, of building character through suffering, of basking in God's love and grace, of spending oneself in gratitude and love for the cause of social justice, et cetera. Rather, what appears to be the actual dominant religion among U.S. teenagers is centrally about feeling good, happy, secure, at peace. It is about attaining subjective well-being, being able to resolve problems, and getting along amiably with other people."
In addition, Moralistic Therapeutic Deism presents a unique understanding of God. As Smith explains, this amorphous faith "is about belief in a particular kind of God: one who exists, created the world, and defines our general moral order, but not one who is particularly personally involved in one's affairs--especially affairs in which one would prefer not to have God involved. Most of the time, the God of this faith keeps a safe distance."
Smith and his colleagues recognize that the deity behind Moralistic Therapeutic Deism is very much like the deistic God of the 18th-century philosophers. This is not the God who thunders from the mountain, nor a God who will serve as judge. This undemanding deity is more interested in solving our problems and in making people happy. "In short, God is something like a combination Divine Butler and Cosmic Therapist: he is always on call, takes care of any problems that arise, professionally helps his people to feel better about themselves, and does not become too personally involved in the process."
Obviously, Moralistic Therapeutic Deism is not an organized faith. This belief system has no denominational headquarters and no mailing address. Nevertheless, it has millions and millions of devotees across the United States and other advanced cultures, where subtle cultural shifts have produced a context in which belief in such an undemanding deity makes sense. Furthermore, this deity does not challenge the most basic self-centered assumptions of our postmodern age. Particularly when it comes to so-called "lifestyle" issues, this God is exceedingly tolerant and this religion is radically undemanding.
As sociologists, Smith and his team suggest that this Moralistic Therapeutic Deism may now constitute something like a dominant civil religion that constitutes the belief system for the culture at large. Thus, this basic conception may be analogous to what other researchers have identified as "lived religion" as experienced by the mainstream culture.
Moving to even deeper issues, these researches claim that Moralistic Therapeutic Deism is "colonizing" Christianity itself, as this new civil religion seduces converts who never have to leave their congregations and Christian identification as they embrace this new faith and all of its undemanding dimensions.
Consider this remarkable assessment: "Other more accomplished scholars in these areas will have to examine and evaluate these possibilities in greater depth. But we can say here that we have come with some confidence to believe that a significant part of Christianity in the United States is actually [only] tenuously Christian in any sense that is seriously connected to the actual historical Christian tradition, but is rather substantially morphed into Christianity's misbegotten step-cousin, Christian Moralistic Therapeutic Deism."
They argue that this distortion of Christianity has taken root not only in the minds of individuals, but also "within the structures of at least some Christian organizations and institutions."
How can you tell? "The language, and therefore experience, of Trinity, holiness, sin, grace, justification, sanctification, church, . . . and heaven and hell appear, among most Christian teenagers in the United States at the very least, to be supplanted by the language of happiness, niceness, and an earned heavenly reward."
Does this mean that America is becoming more secularized? Not necessarily. These researchers assert that Christianity is either degenerating into a pathetic version of itself or, more significantly, Christianity is actively being colonized and displaced by a quite different religious faith.
This radical transformation of Christian theology and Christian belief replaces the sovereignty of God with the sovereignty of the self. In this therapeutic age, human problems are reduced to pathologies in need of a treatment plan. Sin is simply excluded from the picture, and doctrines as central as the wrath and justice of God are discarded as out of step with the times and unhelpful to the project of self-actualization.
All this means is that teenagers have been listening carefully. They have been observing their parents in the larger culture with diligence and insight. They understand just how little their parents really believe and just how much many of their churches and Christian institutions have accommodated themselves to the dominant culture. They sense the degree to which theological conviction has been sacrificed on the altar of individualism and a relativistic understanding of truth. They have learned from their elders that self-improvement is the one great moral imperative to which all are accountable, and they have observed the fact that the highest aspiration of those who shape this culture is to find happiness, security, and meaning in life.
This research project demands the attention of every thinking Christian. Those who are prone to dismiss sociological analysis as irrelevant will miss the point. We must now look at the United States of America as missiologists once viewed nations that had never heard the gospel. Indeed, our missiological challenge may be even greater than the confrontation with paganism, for we face a succession of generations who have transformed Christianity into something that bears no resemblance to the faith revealed in the Bible. The faith "once delivered to the saints" is no longer even known, not only by American teenagers, but by most of their parents. Millions of Americans believe they are Christians, simply because they have some historic tie to a Christian denomination or identity.
We now face the challenge of evangelizing a nation that largely considers itself Christian, overwhelmingly believes in some deity, considers itself fervently religious, but has virtually no connection to historic Christianity. Christian Smith and his colleagues have performed an enormous service for the church of the Lord Jesus Christ in identifying Moralistic Therapeutic Deism as the dominant religion of this American age. Our responsibility is to prepare the church to respond to this new religion, understanding that it represents the greatest competitor to biblical Christianity. More urgently, this study should warn us all that our failure to teach this generation of teenagers the realities and convictions of biblical Christianity will mean that their children will know even less and will be even more readily seduced by this new form of paganism. This study offers irrefutable evidence of the challenge we now face. As the motto reminds us, "Knowledge is power."
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Focus on the Females | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction
Focus on the Females
James Dobson explains his ideas for raising daughters, and life after Focus.
Interview by Sarah Pulliam Bailey | posted 7/14/2010 08:44AM
Related articles and links | [no previous page] 1 of 3 [next page]
ADVERTISEMENT
Church Law & Tax Report Free Trial Issue!
Bringing Up Girls
by James Dobson
Tyndale, April 2010
304 pp., $15.59
Between "sexting," cyber bullying, and bikinis with padded tops for 7-year-olds, James Dobson thinks mainstream culture doesn't offer girls a pretty picture. Dobson's Bringing Up Girls (Tyndale) is the sequel to Bringing Up Boys, which has sold more than two million copies to date.
The founder of Focus on the Family says that one of his favorite letters came from a 14-year-old girl. "I hate you dr. dobson," she wrote. "I had to watch the dumbest movie today about sex. You made the movie. HA! Like you'd know anything about it." Parents are producing strong-willed children, Dobson says, and he wants parents to assume responsibility. Dobson spoke with Christianity Today about his vision for shaping the next generation of women and his departure from Focus on the Family.
How have cultural expectations for girls changed since you raised your daughter? Was there advice for raising girls 30 years ago that would be bad advice today?
No, I haven't changed my views because they are rooted in moral principles and in Scripture, so they are eternal. I don't mean to imply I have a corner on God's truth, but I do draw the ideas and principles from that foundation. It's amazing that if you go back 40 years, when I wrote Dare to Discipline, and read those principles today, they are still on target. Dare to Discipline was published in 1970 in the midst of the Vietnam War and a culture of rebellion. The book was written in that context, but the principles of child rearing have not changed.
Has the rise of feminism made it harder for parents to bring up girls?
The culture has totally changed. Girls today are growing up too fast; the influences of the entertainment industry have changed. Girls are experiencing a lot that their mothers and grandmothers never experienced. That age compression thrusts girls into the adolescent experience far too early and gets them thinking about sexuality at an early age and creates pressure. We are dealing with evidences of emotional turmoil, including eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia; 90 percent of those with eating disorders are girls, some of them as young as 5.
Recently a clothing manufacturer finally took this product off the shelves: bikinis with padded bras for 7-year-olds. You also have cutting, piercing, and sexual aggression among elementary-school-age kids and early involvement in drugs and alcohol. Girls have now reached parity with boys in binge drinking, and there's a high level of violence among girls. One out of three boys and girls is either a victim or a perpetrator of bullying. We've seen news recently about girls who hang themselves after being taunted. There has never been an easy time to raise kids, but it's harder today.
Has feminism made anything easier about raising girls?
Feminism certainly addressed problems that needed to be addressed. Before the late 1960s, when the women's movement came into full force, women were treated like sex objects, and there was not equal pay for equal work. There's now a level of respect for women that was not as evident, say, 50 years ago.
In your book you write about famous women who say they struggle with self-esteem. Yet we are in a culture that also promotes self-help material. How do you teach your daughter about healthy self-esteem while not training her to be self-focused?
My concern is the model that the entertainment industry puts forward. It's a one-value system of evaluating human worth, and that one value is beauty. Girls in their adolescent and middle-school years are going through puberty, and that, of course, brings about acne and gangly bodies. Those girls look at role models like Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and Lindsay Lohan. If they dare be a little overweight—not even fat, but slightly overweight—they hear about it all day long. It tears into the heart and the worth of a girl who just wants to be a princess, who wants to be loved by somebody.
if the father in that situation is not involved, if he doesn't affirm her, love her, tell her she's pretty, put his arm around her, and give her attention, she often looks for it elsewhere. The only thing she has to bargain with is her sexuality, and she thinks she'll be loved if she gives certain gifts of her sexuality. We know where that leads: He gets what he wants and dumps her, and she doesn't get what she wants, which is love.
You explained some of the stereotypes of young girls—they love flowers and are more easily wounded than boys. Are there stereotypes you think are harmful that shouldn't be reinforced?
Yes. In recent years—this is perhaps a product of the feminist movement—girls feel the need to emulate boys, even predatory boys. They are tough, rough, crude, profane, and sexually aggressive. Girls are often the ones to make advances toward boys, which takes away their need to be the initiators. That grows out of this empowerment movement that is related to some feminist ideals that are harmful to girls. Girls are more vulnerable, more easily wounded, and more sensitive in many ways. That is why it's so important for the parents to affirm them, build their understanding of their identity, and help them cope with the culture.
You also warn about the dangers of technology and entertainment. How do you suggest parents handle their children's activities on websites like Facebook and Twitter?
Parents have to know what technology their kids are using. Sexting is a terrible thing. Pornography is pervasive, and parents need to keep up with changes in technology and protect their kids. That's a tough assignment, because kids are ahead of them. Parents often have extremely demanding careers, and when they come home they have nothing left to give, so the culture will often take your kids to hell.
You mentioned your earlier book Dare to Discipline. Should parents discipline their girls differently from boys?
It depends on the individual. No, you don't follow a formula. You have to understand the temperament of the child and give her what you perceive her needing.
I certainly plan on being involved in the moral issues I believe in. I'm healthy, I have lots of energy, and I still have a lot I want to say.
You wrote about your grandmother, who co-pastored a church with your grandfather. If your daughter were to show gifts of leadership and ministry, how would you encourage her to use those gifts as she grows up?
I would encourage her to use whatever gifts God gives her. You can draw the conclusion—which I do not say in this book—that women have to be locked into a narrow role, that they can't be creative and can't be leaders. That's ridiculous and certainly not the point of the book. But it is important that girls know what it means to be a woman. Males and females are unique and different, because their brains are different. There's not a limitation on girls. My grandmother was very strong, and so was my mother. She also knew what it meant to be a woman and wife and was very successful at it.
What do you see as the next area of gender tension in our culture?
I think there's going to be more of the same. Unfortunately, that probably means the continued deterioration of the family. When the family is in disarray, kids suffer. There will probably be more divorce, more single mothers and single fathers. We are not moving in a healthy direction. Our culture is moving toward greater sexual expression. Of course the Internet, with its pornography and influence, is going to be very difficult to counter. We need prayer and dedication to kids to bring them through it.
You said in your book that Karen Santorum would make a wonderful First Lady, and you've made some political endorsements. Do you plan on getting involved in politics?
I certainly plan on being involved in the culture and the moral issues I believe in. The institution of the family has very few friends in Washington. President Obama has already announced he's going to roll back the Bush tax cuts, which means a reinstitution of the marriage penalty tax in 2011. With the tax, married couples actually pay higher taxes than those living together out of wedlock. That's just one example of the disregard for the needs of families. You can be sure I'll do what I can to influence that in the future.
You have left a long legacy for Focus on the Family. Were you ready to leave?
Yes and no. I was there for 33 years; I was the founder and president and chairman, and I poured my life into that ministry. We went from a half-time secretary in 1977 to 1,400 employees and an international ministry that reached 220 million people every day. It's hard to walk away from something like that. We have asked the Lord, Tell us what you want us to do. We're happy to stay here and die on the job if that's what you want. But if it's not, we don't want to stay too long. Founders and presidents have a way of overstaying their welcome and then dying in their desk chair. They leave the organization in disarray because the younger generation has not been trained.
In 2001, I felt the Lord wanted me to step down as president. It was a hard thing to do, but I knew that his hand was at my back. We cried for three or four weeks, and on the last day we cried all day. People were so kind to us, yet it was time to go. But I'm healthy, and I have lots of energy, and I still have a lot I want to say. We started this new ministry called Family Talk, and it's taking off. I'm going back to 1977 and starting over.
Do you see Family Talk as competing at all with Focus on the Family?
It's kind of silly to think that the family, with all its problems across the country and around the world, needs only one ministry whose goal is to reach out to them. There's plenty of work to be done. We're not in competition any more than two Baptist churches in Atlanta are in competition. We're not trying to hurt each other, wound each other, or overtake each other. That's not going to happen.
My legacy doesn't matter. It isn't important that I be remembered. It's important that when I stand before the Lord, he says, "Well done, good and faithful servant." I want to finish strong. I don't want to make a mistake that would hurt the cause of Christ late in my life, so I'm going to do everything I can to bring many people to Christ. If he can use me in that regard through Family Talk, that will be my greatest legacy.
Focus on the Females
James Dobson explains his ideas for raising daughters, and life after Focus.
Interview by Sarah Pulliam Bailey | posted 7/14/2010 08:44AM
Related articles and links | [no previous page] 1 of 3 [next page]
ADVERTISEMENT
Church Law & Tax Report Free Trial Issue!
Bringing Up Girls
by James Dobson
Tyndale, April 2010
304 pp., $15.59
Between "sexting," cyber bullying, and bikinis with padded tops for 7-year-olds, James Dobson thinks mainstream culture doesn't offer girls a pretty picture. Dobson's Bringing Up Girls (Tyndale) is the sequel to Bringing Up Boys, which has sold more than two million copies to date.
The founder of Focus on the Family says that one of his favorite letters came from a 14-year-old girl. "I hate you dr. dobson," she wrote. "I had to watch the dumbest movie today about sex. You made the movie. HA! Like you'd know anything about it." Parents are producing strong-willed children, Dobson says, and he wants parents to assume responsibility. Dobson spoke with Christianity Today about his vision for shaping the next generation of women and his departure from Focus on the Family.
How have cultural expectations for girls changed since you raised your daughter? Was there advice for raising girls 30 years ago that would be bad advice today?
No, I haven't changed my views because they are rooted in moral principles and in Scripture, so they are eternal. I don't mean to imply I have a corner on God's truth, but I do draw the ideas and principles from that foundation. It's amazing that if you go back 40 years, when I wrote Dare to Discipline, and read those principles today, they are still on target. Dare to Discipline was published in 1970 in the midst of the Vietnam War and a culture of rebellion. The book was written in that context, but the principles of child rearing have not changed.
Has the rise of feminism made it harder for parents to bring up girls?
The culture has totally changed. Girls today are growing up too fast; the influences of the entertainment industry have changed. Girls are experiencing a lot that their mothers and grandmothers never experienced. That age compression thrusts girls into the adolescent experience far too early and gets them thinking about sexuality at an early age and creates pressure. We are dealing with evidences of emotional turmoil, including eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia; 90 percent of those with eating disorders are girls, some of them as young as 5.
Recently a clothing manufacturer finally took this product off the shelves: bikinis with padded bras for 7-year-olds. You also have cutting, piercing, and sexual aggression among elementary-school-age kids and early involvement in drugs and alcohol. Girls have now reached parity with boys in binge drinking, and there's a high level of violence among girls. One out of three boys and girls is either a victim or a perpetrator of bullying. We've seen news recently about girls who hang themselves after being taunted. There has never been an easy time to raise kids, but it's harder today.
Has feminism made anything easier about raising girls?
Feminism certainly addressed problems that needed to be addressed. Before the late 1960s, when the women's movement came into full force, women were treated like sex objects, and there was not equal pay for equal work. There's now a level of respect for women that was not as evident, say, 50 years ago.
In your book you write about famous women who say they struggle with self-esteem. Yet we are in a culture that also promotes self-help material. How do you teach your daughter about healthy self-esteem while not training her to be self-focused?
My concern is the model that the entertainment industry puts forward. It's a one-value system of evaluating human worth, and that one value is beauty. Girls in their adolescent and middle-school years are going through puberty, and that, of course, brings about acne and gangly bodies. Those girls look at role models like Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and Lindsay Lohan. If they dare be a little overweight—not even fat, but slightly overweight—they hear about it all day long. It tears into the heart and the worth of a girl who just wants to be a princess, who wants to be loved by somebody.
if the father in that situation is not involved, if he doesn't affirm her, love her, tell her she's pretty, put his arm around her, and give her attention, she often looks for it elsewhere. The only thing she has to bargain with is her sexuality, and she thinks she'll be loved if she gives certain gifts of her sexuality. We know where that leads: He gets what he wants and dumps her, and she doesn't get what she wants, which is love.
You explained some of the stereotypes of young girls—they love flowers and are more easily wounded than boys. Are there stereotypes you think are harmful that shouldn't be reinforced?
Yes. In recent years—this is perhaps a product of the feminist movement—girls feel the need to emulate boys, even predatory boys. They are tough, rough, crude, profane, and sexually aggressive. Girls are often the ones to make advances toward boys, which takes away their need to be the initiators. That grows out of this empowerment movement that is related to some feminist ideals that are harmful to girls. Girls are more vulnerable, more easily wounded, and more sensitive in many ways. That is why it's so important for the parents to affirm them, build their understanding of their identity, and help them cope with the culture.
You also warn about the dangers of technology and entertainment. How do you suggest parents handle their children's activities on websites like Facebook and Twitter?
Parents have to know what technology their kids are using. Sexting is a terrible thing. Pornography is pervasive, and parents need to keep up with changes in technology and protect their kids. That's a tough assignment, because kids are ahead of them. Parents often have extremely demanding careers, and when they come home they have nothing left to give, so the culture will often take your kids to hell.
You mentioned your earlier book Dare to Discipline. Should parents discipline their girls differently from boys?
It depends on the individual. No, you don't follow a formula. You have to understand the temperament of the child and give her what you perceive her needing.
I certainly plan on being involved in the moral issues I believe in. I'm healthy, I have lots of energy, and I still have a lot I want to say.
You wrote about your grandmother, who co-pastored a church with your grandfather. If your daughter were to show gifts of leadership and ministry, how would you encourage her to use those gifts as she grows up?
I would encourage her to use whatever gifts God gives her. You can draw the conclusion—which I do not say in this book—that women have to be locked into a narrow role, that they can't be creative and can't be leaders. That's ridiculous and certainly not the point of the book. But it is important that girls know what it means to be a woman. Males and females are unique and different, because their brains are different. There's not a limitation on girls. My grandmother was very strong, and so was my mother. She also knew what it meant to be a woman and wife and was very successful at it.
What do you see as the next area of gender tension in our culture?
I think there's going to be more of the same. Unfortunately, that probably means the continued deterioration of the family. When the family is in disarray, kids suffer. There will probably be more divorce, more single mothers and single fathers. We are not moving in a healthy direction. Our culture is moving toward greater sexual expression. Of course the Internet, with its pornography and influence, is going to be very difficult to counter. We need prayer and dedication to kids to bring them through it.
You said in your book that Karen Santorum would make a wonderful First Lady, and you've made some political endorsements. Do you plan on getting involved in politics?
I certainly plan on being involved in the culture and the moral issues I believe in. The institution of the family has very few friends in Washington. President Obama has already announced he's going to roll back the Bush tax cuts, which means a reinstitution of the marriage penalty tax in 2011. With the tax, married couples actually pay higher taxes than those living together out of wedlock. That's just one example of the disregard for the needs of families. You can be sure I'll do what I can to influence that in the future.
You have left a long legacy for Focus on the Family. Were you ready to leave?
Yes and no. I was there for 33 years; I was the founder and president and chairman, and I poured my life into that ministry. We went from a half-time secretary in 1977 to 1,400 employees and an international ministry that reached 220 million people every day. It's hard to walk away from something like that. We have asked the Lord, Tell us what you want us to do. We're happy to stay here and die on the job if that's what you want. But if it's not, we don't want to stay too long. Founders and presidents have a way of overstaying their welcome and then dying in their desk chair. They leave the organization in disarray because the younger generation has not been trained.
In 2001, I felt the Lord wanted me to step down as president. It was a hard thing to do, but I knew that his hand was at my back. We cried for three or four weeks, and on the last day we cried all day. People were so kind to us, yet it was time to go. But I'm healthy, and I have lots of energy, and I still have a lot I want to say. We started this new ministry called Family Talk, and it's taking off. I'm going back to 1977 and starting over.
Do you see Family Talk as competing at all with Focus on the Family?
It's kind of silly to think that the family, with all its problems across the country and around the world, needs only one ministry whose goal is to reach out to them. There's plenty of work to be done. We're not in competition any more than two Baptist churches in Atlanta are in competition. We're not trying to hurt each other, wound each other, or overtake each other. That's not going to happen.
My legacy doesn't matter. It isn't important that I be remembered. It's important that when I stand before the Lord, he says, "Well done, good and faithful servant." I want to finish strong. I don't want to make a mistake that would hurt the cause of Christ late in my life, so I'm going to do everything I can to bring many people to Christ. If he can use me in that regard through Family Talk, that will be my greatest legacy.
Much ado about Nothing
Ann Coulter
New Black Panthers, You're Free To Go -- Not So Fast, Arizona
by Ann Coulter
07/14/2010
So I guess all that hysteria about the Arizona immigration law was much ado about nothing. After months of telling us that the Nazis had seized Arizona, when the Obama administration finally got around to suing, its only objection was that the law was "pre-empted" by federal immigration law.
With the vast majority of Americans supporting Arizona's inoffensive little law, the fact that Obama is suing at all suggests that he consulted exclusively with the craziest people in America before filing this complaint. (Which is to say, Eric Holder's Justice Department.)
But apparently even they could find nothing discriminatory about Arizona's law. It's reassuring to know that, contrary to earlier indications, government lawyers can at least read English.
Instead, the administration argues, federal laws on immigration pre-empt Arizona's law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
State laws are pre-empted by federal law in two circumstances: When there is a conflict -- such as "sanctuary cities" for illegals or California's medical marijuana law -- or when Congress has so thoroughly regulated a field that there is no room for even congruent state laws.
If Obama thinks there's a conflict, I believe he's made a damning admission. There's a conflict only if the official policy of the federal government is to ignore its own immigration laws.
Only slightly less preposterous is the argument that although Arizona's law agrees with federal law, Congress has engaged in "field pre-emption" by occupying the entire field of immigration, thus prohibiting even harmonious state laws.
Field pre-emption may arise, for example, in the case of federal health and safety laws, so that manufacturers of cars, medical devices and drugs aren't forced to comply with the laws of 50 different states to sell their products nationally.
And yet, just over a year ago, the Supreme Court held that there was no "field pre-emption" even in the case of an FDA-approved anti-nausea drug because Congress had not explicitly stated that state regulation was pre-empted.
The drug, Phenergan, came with the warning that, if administered improperly (so that it enters an artery), catastrophe could ensue.
In April 2000, Phenergan was administered improperly to Diana Levine -- by a clinician ignoring six separate warnings on Phenergan's label. Catastrophe ensued; Levine developed gangrene and had to have her lower arm amputated.
Levine sued the health center and clinician for malpractice, and won.
But then she also sued the drug manufacturer, Wyeth Laboratories, on the grounds that it should have included more glaring warnings about proper administration of the drug -- like, I don't know, maybe a flashing neon sign on each vial.
Wyeth argued that since the Food and Drug Administration (after 54 years of study) had expressly approved the warnings as provided, state tort law was pre-empted by the federal drug regime.
But the Supreme Court held that Congress had to make pre-emption explicit, which it had not, so Levine was awarded $6.7 million from Wyeth.
If ever there were a case for "implicit pre-emption," this was it. Without federal supremacy for the FDA's comprehensive regulation of drugs, pharmaceutical companies are forever at the mercy of state and local laws -- and trial lawyers -- in all 50 states.
As much as I would like pharmaceutical companies to rot in hell for their support of ObamaCare, I might need their drugs someday. Now, drug prices will not only have to incorporate R&D costs, but also the cost of paying for trial lawyers' Ferraris. (Perhaps that should be listed as a side effect: "Caution! Improper use may cause nausea, dizziness, shortness of breath, and six new houses for John Edwards.")
But the point is: According to the Supreme Court's most recent pre-emption ruling, Arizona's law is not pre-empted because Congress did not expressly prohibit state regulation of illegal aliens.
In fact, the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the pre-emption argument against state laws on immigrants -- including laws somewhat at odds with federal law, which the Arizona law is not.
In the seminal case, De Canas v. Bica (1976), the court held 8-0 that a California law prohibiting employers from hiring illegal immigrants was not pre-empted by federal law.
The court -– per Justice William Brennan -- said that the federal government's supremacy over immigration is strictly limited to: (1) a "determination of who should or should not be admitted into the country," and (2) "the conditions under which a legal entrant may remain."
So a state can't start issuing or revoking visas, but that's about all it can't do.
Manifestly, a state law about illegal immigrants has nothing to do with immigrants who enter legally or the conditions of their staying here. Illegal aliens have neither been "admitted into the country" nor are they "legal entrants."
Indeed, as Brennan noted in the De Canas case, there's even "a line of cases that upheld certain discriminatory state treatment of aliens lawfully within the United States." (You might want to jot some of this down, Mr. Holder.)
So there's no "field pre-emption" of state laws dealing with aliens, nor is there an explicit statement from Congress pre-empting state regulation of aliens.
On top of that, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld state laws on immigrants in the face of pre-emption challenges. Arizona's law is no more pre-empted than the rest of them.
Unless, of course, Obama is right and it's a violation of federal law to enforce federal immigration laws, which is the essence of the Department of Justice's lawsuit.
New Black Panthers, You're Free To Go -- Not So Fast, Arizona
by Ann Coulter
07/14/2010
So I guess all that hysteria about the Arizona immigration law was much ado about nothing. After months of telling us that the Nazis had seized Arizona, when the Obama administration finally got around to suing, its only objection was that the law was "pre-empted" by federal immigration law.
With the vast majority of Americans supporting Arizona's inoffensive little law, the fact that Obama is suing at all suggests that he consulted exclusively with the craziest people in America before filing this complaint. (Which is to say, Eric Holder's Justice Department.)
But apparently even they could find nothing discriminatory about Arizona's law. It's reassuring to know that, contrary to earlier indications, government lawyers can at least read English.
Instead, the administration argues, federal laws on immigration pre-empt Arizona's law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
State laws are pre-empted by federal law in two circumstances: When there is a conflict -- such as "sanctuary cities" for illegals or California's medical marijuana law -- or when Congress has so thoroughly regulated a field that there is no room for even congruent state laws.
If Obama thinks there's a conflict, I believe he's made a damning admission. There's a conflict only if the official policy of the federal government is to ignore its own immigration laws.
Only slightly less preposterous is the argument that although Arizona's law agrees with federal law, Congress has engaged in "field pre-emption" by occupying the entire field of immigration, thus prohibiting even harmonious state laws.
Field pre-emption may arise, for example, in the case of federal health and safety laws, so that manufacturers of cars, medical devices and drugs aren't forced to comply with the laws of 50 different states to sell their products nationally.
And yet, just over a year ago, the Supreme Court held that there was no "field pre-emption" even in the case of an FDA-approved anti-nausea drug because Congress had not explicitly stated that state regulation was pre-empted.
The drug, Phenergan, came with the warning that, if administered improperly (so that it enters an artery), catastrophe could ensue.
In April 2000, Phenergan was administered improperly to Diana Levine -- by a clinician ignoring six separate warnings on Phenergan's label. Catastrophe ensued; Levine developed gangrene and had to have her lower arm amputated.
Levine sued the health center and clinician for malpractice, and won.
But then she also sued the drug manufacturer, Wyeth Laboratories, on the grounds that it should have included more glaring warnings about proper administration of the drug -- like, I don't know, maybe a flashing neon sign on each vial.
Wyeth argued that since the Food and Drug Administration (after 54 years of study) had expressly approved the warnings as provided, state tort law was pre-empted by the federal drug regime.
But the Supreme Court held that Congress had to make pre-emption explicit, which it had not, so Levine was awarded $6.7 million from Wyeth.
If ever there were a case for "implicit pre-emption," this was it. Without federal supremacy for the FDA's comprehensive regulation of drugs, pharmaceutical companies are forever at the mercy of state and local laws -- and trial lawyers -- in all 50 states.
As much as I would like pharmaceutical companies to rot in hell for their support of ObamaCare, I might need their drugs someday. Now, drug prices will not only have to incorporate R&D costs, but also the cost of paying for trial lawyers' Ferraris. (Perhaps that should be listed as a side effect: "Caution! Improper use may cause nausea, dizziness, shortness of breath, and six new houses for John Edwards.")
But the point is: According to the Supreme Court's most recent pre-emption ruling, Arizona's law is not pre-empted because Congress did not expressly prohibit state regulation of illegal aliens.
In fact, the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the pre-emption argument against state laws on immigrants -- including laws somewhat at odds with federal law, which the Arizona law is not.
In the seminal case, De Canas v. Bica (1976), the court held 8-0 that a California law prohibiting employers from hiring illegal immigrants was not pre-empted by federal law.
The court -– per Justice William Brennan -- said that the federal government's supremacy over immigration is strictly limited to: (1) a "determination of who should or should not be admitted into the country," and (2) "the conditions under which a legal entrant may remain."
So a state can't start issuing or revoking visas, but that's about all it can't do.
Manifestly, a state law about illegal immigrants has nothing to do with immigrants who enter legally or the conditions of their staying here. Illegal aliens have neither been "admitted into the country" nor are they "legal entrants."
Indeed, as Brennan noted in the De Canas case, there's even "a line of cases that upheld certain discriminatory state treatment of aliens lawfully within the United States." (You might want to jot some of this down, Mr. Holder.)
So there's no "field pre-emption" of state laws dealing with aliens, nor is there an explicit statement from Congress pre-empting state regulation of aliens.
On top of that, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld state laws on immigrants in the face of pre-emption challenges. Arizona's law is no more pre-empted than the rest of them.
Unless, of course, Obama is right and it's a violation of federal law to enforce federal immigration laws, which is the essence of the Department of Justice's lawsuit.
Fast Food Prayer
Sadly though this might be funny, but there are many among who think that God's only purpose is to fill our orders....
Franklin Graham: ‘God Used’ Judge
Franklin Graham: ‘God Used’ Judge Who Ruled National Day of Prayer Unconstitutional ‘to Accomplish His Purposes’
Friday, May 07, 2010
By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer
Evangelist Frankin Graham gave the keynote address at the 59th annual National Day of Prayer on Capitol Hill on Thursday. Graham swept aside controversy surrounding this year's event and proudly proclaimed his Christian faith and the importance of praying for those in authority in the nation. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)
(CNSNews.com) – A standing ovation greeted preacher Franklin Graham as he took the podium at the National Day of Prayer on Capitol Hill on Thursday to give the keynote address.
Graham, the son of evangelist Billy Graham, did not back down from criticism that he had disparaged Muslims, telling the crowd that he is a Christian minister who preaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
In an interview with CNSNews.com, Graham turned on its head the controversy sparked by a federal judge’s ruling that the National Day of Prayer was unconstitutional by praising the judge’s decision.
Graham said that U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb’s decision had put the National Day of Prayer in the spotlight and prompted even more Americans to rally to the cause this year.
“God bless her,” Graham said. “I want to give her a hug and a kiss right now.”
Graham said until the ruling on the suit – filed by the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion group claiming the U.S. law that authorized the National Day of Prayer was unconstitutional – organizers were looking for ways to get people excited about the tradition.
People from across the region and the nation took part in the event in the caucus room of the Canon building, which included prayers for all branches of government. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)
The National Day of Prayer dates back to 1952 when the proclamation was passed with unanimous consent by Congress and signed into law by President Harry Truman.
“God had a plan,” Graham said. “I don’t think (Crabb) realized that God used her to accomplish his purposes.”
Graham said he believes that the National Day of Prayer is not only constitutional, but that Christians are uniquely called to pray for their leaders.
“The Bible commands – it’s the only religion in the world that commands its followers to pray for those who are in authority,” Graham said. “Regardless of whether we agree with the president or his policy, whether a person votes for him or doesn’t vote for him, we are commanded by God to pray.
“I just thank God that as a nation we have this opportunity publicly like this today to pray for those who are in authority over us,” Graham said.
Franklin also spoke with CNSNews.com about the controversy surrounding the cancellation of his planned speech for Thursday at the Pentagon – where he showed up nonetheless before his Capitol Hill appearance – to pray for U.S. troops.
“I’m a Christian,” Graham said. “I believe that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life. I do not believe that there is any other way to God except through Him.
“I respect the Muslims, but I disagree with them,” Graham said. “They disagree with me. I disagree with them. And that’s okay.
Country star Ricky Skaggs performed at the National Day of Prayer and told the crowd that he hoped the nation turns back to God. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)
“But I don’t think that I should be prohibited from sharing my faith because I disagree with them,” Graham said.
The caucus room in the Cannon Office Building room was filled to capacity as members of Congress and regular Americans from across the country gathered to pray for the nation and its leaders at the 59th annual National Day of Prayer.
Shirley Dobson, chairwoman of the National Day of Prayer Task Force, shared master of ceremony duties with her husband, James Dobson.
Prayers were said for all branches of government by a range of speakers, including Rabbi Yechiel Z. Eckstein, Archbishop of Washington Donald Wuerl, and Barry Black, chaplain of the U.S. Senate.
Deidra Baker came from Maryland to attend the event because she said prayer is an important right in America.
“I want to pray for our nation, pray for families,” Baker told CNSNews.com. “Because it’s very important to me that God blesses this country.
“I think our Constitution gives us the right to express ourselves, and this is part of that expression, and we should have the right to do that,” Baker said.
Franklin warned that people of faith need to stand up for religious liberty.
“I think people realize – many Christians – how we are losing our religious freedoms a little bit every day,” he said, “and if we don’t stand up and exercise the freedoms God has given us in this country, we will lose them.”
Like this story? Then sign up to receive our free daily E-Brief newsletter
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-10 of 25
Comments
1 2 3 Next
Loading... Loading...
silver-shadow (2 months ago)
I must disagree with Mr Grahams contentions we are losing our freedom. God created me with what I will call a free will, I am therefore free to choose whether I will worship God or not. I DO NOT need the permission of the government, high court, congress or the church. With that being said we must also submit to the laws of the land and obey those in authority over us. But there may come a time when we will have to choose who will have the higher authority in our lives and follow them. Danial became an example of this issue exactly. The King passed law requiring homage to himself and no other and Danial slighted the king. Under threat of death then Dann boy Clearly stated his position on the issue. I will only worship my God and He will save me for this decision. However should He allow my death it becomes irrelevant, I will only worship the One True GOD. We as Christians will come to thos crossroads in our life. Decision Time. Bless you and Know we are praying for natio
silver-shadow (2 months ago)
I must disagree with Mr Grahams contentions we are losing our freedom. God created me with what I will call a free will, I am therefore free to choose whether I will worship God or not. I DO NOT need the permission of the government, high court, congress or the church. With that being said we must also submit to the laws of the land and obey those in authority over us. But there may come a time when we will have to choose who will have the higher authority in our lives and follow them. Danial became an example of this issue exactly. The King passed law requiring homage to himself and no other and Danial slighted the king. Under threat of death then Dann boy Clearly stated his position on the issue. I will only worship my God and He will save me for this decision. However should He allow my death it becomes irrelevant, I will only worship the One True GOD. We as Christians will come to thos crossroads in our life. Decision Time. Bless you and Know we are praying for natio
call me roy (2 months ago)
Franklin Graham (like his father) is a courageous man who is stating the obvious to millions of Americans - that Islam is not a peaceful religion. But his words fall like a hammer to those on the politically-correct Left who don't even believe there is such a thing as right and wrong, good and evil. To them, all things are shades of gray, especially when it comes to religion. But all you have to do is look at what Islam produces in a society where it is the dominant religion. Where on earth is there a place that Islam is dominant where you also find respect for human rights, freedom of religion, and an absence of terrorist jihadist activity? Franklin Graham's mesaage is exactly why Obama visited the Grahams. The question is: When will Obama be looking into it and what was Obama looking for?
gazinya (2 months ago)
I would add just this. These Godly men who wrote the Constitution were Christians. They all spoke to the belief that Jesus is who He says He is. Redeemer and Son of God. These men did not seek out other religions or other scriptures. These men knew The Bible intimately. They wrote about their belief in Jesus and they spoke openly about their faith. They did not proclaim that a particular sect was superior but that faith in Chirst was essentiial to this Country. They drew from their experience of history and their own personnal conclusions of life. They knew that at mans' core was rebellion. They rejected the idea of government being supreme because man was not supreme. Trusting in God to lead and the Constitution to reign in. That is what makes the United States unique. Not our wealth nor our military. It is a nation 'under God' with liberty and justice for all. That is the American Dream.
gazinya (2 months ago)
In the book of Samual vs 8 is the story of the Isrealites demanding a 'king' to rule over them instead of 'judges' that God chose. The Isrealites said, 'they wanted a king like all the other nations.' God told them that this would be a sin and told them that would be a slave to a 'king'. The Isrealites didn't care. They wanted to be like the rest of the world. They wanted to have what the world had. Our Contitution is something that is unique is world governments and it was written by God fearing men. To trust in God and not man is it's theme. We have turned our back on that and are now seeing how corrosive that is to a Godly society. Remember, "The mind of man has many plans but the purpose of the Lord is established." Prov. 19:21.
Fleta (2 months ago)
All Christians suffer persecution, it's usually the "religious" hypocrits who find fault with people who trust in Jesus Christ. They wouldn't dare speak against Islam. What is puzzling to me is that the same people who embrace homosexual behavior as normal, aborting unwanted babies, going half naked, committing adultery and fornication have no problem with the Islamic religion which prounounces death to the practioners of the above. Our God commands us to love sinners, to forgive them. Our God died for us, THEIR god expects them to die for him.
Anthony1 (2 months ago)
God bless Dr. Franklin Graham and Dr. James and Shirley Dobson and the good people of the United States of America. We are praying here for our beloved nation, Romans 13; and the Lord will help us all as a nation in these final hours of our existence before the Lord Jesus Christ returns in Glory to establish His Kingdom that will have no end. Until then, as a Christian ~ GOD BLESS AMERICA and save us from these secular progressives that are hell bent on destroying everything good about our country !! Abbot Anthony
fanofthegreatone (2 months ago)
One thing we’re taught in our church is that we must respect and honor those in authority. While this was easy 5 years ago when the GOP had the White House and Congress, it’s extremely difficult now, given the disastrous 2008 election results. Our 1st Amendment rights have never been in such jeopardy as they’ve been over the past 16 months. On the bright side, we’re also taught that we CAN, and SHOULD vote out the kind of politicians currently in power!! The 11/4/2008 election had serious consequences. Now, VOTERS NEED TO WISE UP IN 2010, 2012 AND BEYOND!!!!
jstan442 (2 months ago)
nikki h-sorry you just don't know the Word of God-all other religions you have to do something to get the approval of their god so that you may enter heaven/paradise-Christianity is the only religion that accepts faith alone for you to enter-faith in the resurrection of Jesus-Jesus said 'i am the Way,the Truth and the Light-no one comes to the Father except by Me'-either this is a true statement or false-if it is false then He would be a liar and the Bible not truthful-if it is the Truth then all other religions are false-i do not serve a psychotic god but a loving God who wants all to be saved
The7Sticks (2 months ago)
No he didn't. God created free will for humans, and it was the free will of a stupid liberal judge that made this asinine judgement about the Nat'l Day of Prayer.
Friday, May 07, 2010
By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer
Evangelist Frankin Graham gave the keynote address at the 59th annual National Day of Prayer on Capitol Hill on Thursday. Graham swept aside controversy surrounding this year's event and proudly proclaimed his Christian faith and the importance of praying for those in authority in the nation. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)
(CNSNews.com) – A standing ovation greeted preacher Franklin Graham as he took the podium at the National Day of Prayer on Capitol Hill on Thursday to give the keynote address.
Graham, the son of evangelist Billy Graham, did not back down from criticism that he had disparaged Muslims, telling the crowd that he is a Christian minister who preaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
In an interview with CNSNews.com, Graham turned on its head the controversy sparked by a federal judge’s ruling that the National Day of Prayer was unconstitutional by praising the judge’s decision.
Graham said that U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb’s decision had put the National Day of Prayer in the spotlight and prompted even more Americans to rally to the cause this year.
“God bless her,” Graham said. “I want to give her a hug and a kiss right now.”
Graham said until the ruling on the suit – filed by the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion group claiming the U.S. law that authorized the National Day of Prayer was unconstitutional – organizers were looking for ways to get people excited about the tradition.
People from across the region and the nation took part in the event in the caucus room of the Canon building, which included prayers for all branches of government. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)
The National Day of Prayer dates back to 1952 when the proclamation was passed with unanimous consent by Congress and signed into law by President Harry Truman.
“God had a plan,” Graham said. “I don’t think (Crabb) realized that God used her to accomplish his purposes.”
Graham said he believes that the National Day of Prayer is not only constitutional, but that Christians are uniquely called to pray for their leaders.
“The Bible commands – it’s the only religion in the world that commands its followers to pray for those who are in authority,” Graham said. “Regardless of whether we agree with the president or his policy, whether a person votes for him or doesn’t vote for him, we are commanded by God to pray.
“I just thank God that as a nation we have this opportunity publicly like this today to pray for those who are in authority over us,” Graham said.
Franklin also spoke with CNSNews.com about the controversy surrounding the cancellation of his planned speech for Thursday at the Pentagon – where he showed up nonetheless before his Capitol Hill appearance – to pray for U.S. troops.
“I’m a Christian,” Graham said. “I believe that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life. I do not believe that there is any other way to God except through Him.
“I respect the Muslims, but I disagree with them,” Graham said. “They disagree with me. I disagree with them. And that’s okay.
Country star Ricky Skaggs performed at the National Day of Prayer and told the crowd that he hoped the nation turns back to God. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)
“But I don’t think that I should be prohibited from sharing my faith because I disagree with them,” Graham said.
The caucus room in the Cannon Office Building room was filled to capacity as members of Congress and regular Americans from across the country gathered to pray for the nation and its leaders at the 59th annual National Day of Prayer.
Shirley Dobson, chairwoman of the National Day of Prayer Task Force, shared master of ceremony duties with her husband, James Dobson.
Prayers were said for all branches of government by a range of speakers, including Rabbi Yechiel Z. Eckstein, Archbishop of Washington Donald Wuerl, and Barry Black, chaplain of the U.S. Senate.
Deidra Baker came from Maryland to attend the event because she said prayer is an important right in America.
“I want to pray for our nation, pray for families,” Baker told CNSNews.com. “Because it’s very important to me that God blesses this country.
“I think our Constitution gives us the right to express ourselves, and this is part of that expression, and we should have the right to do that,” Baker said.
Franklin warned that people of faith need to stand up for religious liberty.
“I think people realize – many Christians – how we are losing our religious freedoms a little bit every day,” he said, “and if we don’t stand up and exercise the freedoms God has given us in this country, we will lose them.”
Like this story? Then sign up to receive our free daily E-Brief newsletter
Viewer Comments
The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions of either CNSNews.com or the story’s author. To be considered for publication, comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank you.
Showing 1-10 of 25
Comments
1 2 3 Next
Loading... Loading...
silver-shadow (2 months ago)
I must disagree with Mr Grahams contentions we are losing our freedom. God created me with what I will call a free will, I am therefore free to choose whether I will worship God or not. I DO NOT need the permission of the government, high court, congress or the church. With that being said we must also submit to the laws of the land and obey those in authority over us. But there may come a time when we will have to choose who will have the higher authority in our lives and follow them. Danial became an example of this issue exactly. The King passed law requiring homage to himself and no other and Danial slighted the king. Under threat of death then Dann boy Clearly stated his position on the issue. I will only worship my God and He will save me for this decision. However should He allow my death it becomes irrelevant, I will only worship the One True GOD. We as Christians will come to thos crossroads in our life. Decision Time. Bless you and Know we are praying for natio
silver-shadow (2 months ago)
I must disagree with Mr Grahams contentions we are losing our freedom. God created me with what I will call a free will, I am therefore free to choose whether I will worship God or not. I DO NOT need the permission of the government, high court, congress or the church. With that being said we must also submit to the laws of the land and obey those in authority over us. But there may come a time when we will have to choose who will have the higher authority in our lives and follow them. Danial became an example of this issue exactly. The King passed law requiring homage to himself and no other and Danial slighted the king. Under threat of death then Dann boy Clearly stated his position on the issue. I will only worship my God and He will save me for this decision. However should He allow my death it becomes irrelevant, I will only worship the One True GOD. We as Christians will come to thos crossroads in our life. Decision Time. Bless you and Know we are praying for natio
call me roy (2 months ago)
Franklin Graham (like his father) is a courageous man who is stating the obvious to millions of Americans - that Islam is not a peaceful religion. But his words fall like a hammer to those on the politically-correct Left who don't even believe there is such a thing as right and wrong, good and evil. To them, all things are shades of gray, especially when it comes to religion. But all you have to do is look at what Islam produces in a society where it is the dominant religion. Where on earth is there a place that Islam is dominant where you also find respect for human rights, freedom of religion, and an absence of terrorist jihadist activity? Franklin Graham's mesaage is exactly why Obama visited the Grahams. The question is: When will Obama be looking into it and what was Obama looking for?
gazinya (2 months ago)
I would add just this. These Godly men who wrote the Constitution were Christians. They all spoke to the belief that Jesus is who He says He is. Redeemer and Son of God. These men did not seek out other religions or other scriptures. These men knew The Bible intimately. They wrote about their belief in Jesus and they spoke openly about their faith. They did not proclaim that a particular sect was superior but that faith in Chirst was essentiial to this Country. They drew from their experience of history and their own personnal conclusions of life. They knew that at mans' core was rebellion. They rejected the idea of government being supreme because man was not supreme. Trusting in God to lead and the Constitution to reign in. That is what makes the United States unique. Not our wealth nor our military. It is a nation 'under God' with liberty and justice for all. That is the American Dream.
gazinya (2 months ago)
In the book of Samual vs 8 is the story of the Isrealites demanding a 'king' to rule over them instead of 'judges' that God chose. The Isrealites said, 'they wanted a king like all the other nations.' God told them that this would be a sin and told them that would be a slave to a 'king'. The Isrealites didn't care. They wanted to be like the rest of the world. They wanted to have what the world had. Our Contitution is something that is unique is world governments and it was written by God fearing men. To trust in God and not man is it's theme. We have turned our back on that and are now seeing how corrosive that is to a Godly society. Remember, "The mind of man has many plans but the purpose of the Lord is established." Prov. 19:21.
Fleta (2 months ago)
All Christians suffer persecution, it's usually the "religious" hypocrits who find fault with people who trust in Jesus Christ. They wouldn't dare speak against Islam. What is puzzling to me is that the same people who embrace homosexual behavior as normal, aborting unwanted babies, going half naked, committing adultery and fornication have no problem with the Islamic religion which prounounces death to the practioners of the above. Our God commands us to love sinners, to forgive them. Our God died for us, THEIR god expects them to die for him.
Anthony1 (2 months ago)
God bless Dr. Franklin Graham and Dr. James and Shirley Dobson and the good people of the United States of America. We are praying here for our beloved nation, Romans 13; and the Lord will help us all as a nation in these final hours of our existence before the Lord Jesus Christ returns in Glory to establish His Kingdom that will have no end. Until then, as a Christian ~ GOD BLESS AMERICA and save us from these secular progressives that are hell bent on destroying everything good about our country !! Abbot Anthony
fanofthegreatone (2 months ago)
One thing we’re taught in our church is that we must respect and honor those in authority. While this was easy 5 years ago when the GOP had the White House and Congress, it’s extremely difficult now, given the disastrous 2008 election results. Our 1st Amendment rights have never been in such jeopardy as they’ve been over the past 16 months. On the bright side, we’re also taught that we CAN, and SHOULD vote out the kind of politicians currently in power!! The 11/4/2008 election had serious consequences. Now, VOTERS NEED TO WISE UP IN 2010, 2012 AND BEYOND!!!!
jstan442 (2 months ago)
nikki h-sorry you just don't know the Word of God-all other religions you have to do something to get the approval of their god so that you may enter heaven/paradise-Christianity is the only religion that accepts faith alone for you to enter-faith in the resurrection of Jesus-Jesus said 'i am the Way,the Truth and the Light-no one comes to the Father except by Me'-either this is a true statement or false-if it is false then He would be a liar and the Bible not truthful-if it is the Truth then all other religions are false-i do not serve a psychotic god but a loving God who wants all to be saved
The7Sticks (2 months ago)
No he didn't. God created free will for humans, and it was the free will of a stupid liberal judge that made this asinine judgement about the Nat'l Day of Prayer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Please remember the opinions expressed by our readers are in no way those of Human Events, nor are they condoned by us, and we reserve the right to remove abusive posts.