Remembering Our

Bravest American Men and Women

'Lord,

Hold our troops in your loving hands.

Protect them as they protect us.

Bless them and their families for the

selfless acts they perform for us in our time of need.

In Jesus’ name,
Amen.'

Ragbag Headliners

Gay Cure Therapy Is ‘Quackery Fueled By Bias’

The American Pshycoanalytic Association, writing to Rachel Maddow’s team to praise last weeks segment on the history of the “ex-gay” idea, has said that any such attempts at a cure are “quackery” fueled by bias.

Following last Wednesday’s segment the Maddow blog reports the show was sent the following comment from the American Psychoanalytic Association:

This issue deserves coverage in the news as long as individuals and the “ex-gay movement” use faulty science and bias to advance their agenda. APsaA states in its 1999 position statement on reparative therapy that efforts to “convert” or “repair” an individual’s sexual orientation are against the fundamental principles of psychoanalytic treatment and often result in substantial psychological pain by reinforcing damaging internalized homophobic attitudes. We emphasize that anti-homosexual bias, just like any other societal prejudice, negatively affects mental health and contributes to feelings of stigma and low self-worth. Reparative therapy is nothing more than quackery fueled by bias.

Maddow’s chief aim in running the segment was to publicize the fact that Dr Robert Spitzer had asked to withdraw his 2001 study that had been used as proof that gay people can change their sexual orientation. The study was widely criticized for allowing the pre-selected 200 patients to self-report change and for not following them over a number of years to see if that so-called change persisted.

Spitzer, in an interview with Gabriel Arana for his piece in The American Prospect called “My So-Called Ex-Gay Life”, said he wished to withdraw that study and cited the potential harms its unsubstantiated claims might have caused the gay community, the very same community Spitzer had worked hard to depathologize just a few decades before.

In last week’s segment Rachel Maddow said she hoped that, just as mainstream media had been complicit in spreading news of the Spitzer study the first time around, they would similarly state Spitzer’s desire to retract the suspect findings and make it known that ex-gay therapy remains scientifically groundless and potentially damaging. –Care2

<><><>*<><><>

‘Islamic Police’: Islamists ‘Invade’ Mali & Ban Traditional Music, Alcohol, Unveiled Women & More

In one town in northern Mali a man has been whipped for drinking alcohol. In another, pictures of unveiled women have been torn down. In a third, traditional music is no longer heard in the streets. It’s evident that the Islamist “invasion,” influence — and rule — is overtaking the West African nation.

While government soldiers were fighting each other this week for control of the capital in Mali’s southwest corner, Islamist fighters were asserting control over the Texas-sized northern half of the country. The Islamists, some of whom are foreigners, are imposing strict religious law, setting up a possible showdown with Tuareg nationalist rebels who say they want a secular state and who seized northern Mali in March alongside the Islamists.

In the fabled city of Timbuktu, whose winding alleyways lined with mud homes fill with sand blown in from the Sahara, pictures of unveiled women have either been torn down or covered over with black paint, according to El Hadj Baba Haidara, a member of the Malian parliament for the city. The Islamists have also cut the signal for national TV broadcasts to the city because they consider the women not properly covered and don’t approve of the music the station plays, Haidara said. –The Blaze

<><><>*<><><>

Taxpayers Funding Employment Discrimination By Religious Groups

Listen to the Catholic Bishops and there’s an all out assault on religious liberty and freedom in this country. But if that’s the case, what’s with all the tax payer dollars going to support organizations that discriminate by hiring only Christians?

Crisis Pregnancy Centers can legally refuse to hire non-Christians if they are privately funded. But in some cases, they do so and  receive federal funds. And as Sophia Resnick reports, these are not isolated incidents.

Thanks to a Bush-era rule, and one that remains in place thanks to the Obama administration, recipients of federal funds can discriminate in hiring staff based on religion in a practice spun by supporters as “co-religionist hiring.” Candidate Obama had promised to do away with that rule but caved after political pressure from evangelical leaders.

Still think President Obama is anti-religion?

The attacks launched against Planned Parenthood and the contraception mandate depend on embracing an idea that taxpayer dollars should not go to support those programs even though funding streams are kept segregating. But crisis pregnancy centers, which offer spiritual counseling are entirely religious and do not segregate funding. And they promote an agenda that is squarely antagonist to democratic principles of equality of opportunity.

So that means that for the time being there is no way to guarantee that taxpayer dollars are not going to fund sectarian religious activity and that the rights of those who receive services from those taxpayer-funded organizations aren’t violated in the process. –Care2

The Fastest Growing Religion In America Is Islam

Largest Mosque In The U.S.

Do you know what the fastest growing religion in America is?  It isn't Christianity.  According to the latest U.S. Religion Census that was just released on May 1, 2012, the fastest growing religion in America is Islam.  The data for the census was compiled by the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies, and the results were released by the Association of Religion Data Archives.  From the year 2000 to the year 2010, the census found that the number of Muslims living inside the United States increased by about 1 million to 2.6 million - a stunning increase of 66.7 percent.  That is an astounding rate of growth.  Meanwhile, most Christian denominations had rates of growth that were far below the overall rate of population growth in the United States, and some Christian denominations actually lost members.  Sadly, when Barack Obama once said that "we are no longer a Christian nation" he wasn't too far off the mark.  Christianity is rapidly losing influence and other religions such as Islam are rapidly gaining members and building new places of worship.  As other major religions such as Islam continue to grow in the United States, it is inevitable that this will reshape America in many different ways in the years ahead.

So what about other religious groups?

How did they fare according to the U.S. Religion Census?

Well, the following are some of the growth rates for major religious organizations from the year 2000 to the year 2010....

Mormons: +45.5%

Evangelical Protestants: +1.7% (far behind the overall rate of population growth)

Catholics: -5.0%

Mainline Protestants: -12.8% (an astounding decline)

But it was Islam that experienced the most explosive growth.

According to Ihsan Bagby, a professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Kentucky, there were about 1,200 mosques in America back in the year 2000.

According to this new census, there are now 2,106.

All over the United States we are seeing "mega-mosques" being constructed, and in many cases the funding is coming from overseas.

And these mega-mosques are not going unused.  In some areas of the country, Islamic communities are experiencing absolutely explosive growth.

The following example comes from a recent USA Today article....

    Imam Muhammad Musri, president of the Islamic Society of Central Florida, saw growth explode by a whopping 473 percent in and around Orlando's Orange County, according to the RCMS study, and he thinks the growth is actually double the 10,000 new Muslims reported by the study.

    He said Muslim growth has been fueled by a wave of post-9/11 converts, American-born children of immigrants having kids of their own, and jobs in the booming medical industry. In central Florida, he said, Muslims are just following everyone else in search of "better weather, cheaper prices, cheaper homes."

A lot of this growth is being fueled by immigration.  A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center back in 2007 discovered that 39 percent of all adult Muslims living in America were immigrants that had arrived in the United States since 1990.

This rapid influx of Muslims is reshaping communities all over America.  For example, Muslim students now account for approximately 10 percent of the total number of students in the New York City School District.

And all over the country many school districts are now changing their school calendars to observe Islamic holidays.

In fact, in Dearborn, Michigan football practices are actually scheduled around Ramadan.  The following is from a Fox News article....

    In Dearborn, Mich., where schools are closed on both the day before and the day of Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha, the predominantly-Muslim football team has switched its two-a-day summer practice schedule to 11 p.m. to 4 a.m. during Ramadan, so that Muslim players -- who fast while the sun is up – won't be forced to practice in the heat without drinking water.

    The move received little backlash in Dearborn, because most of the football players are Muslims.

Dearborn is located just outside of Detroit, and it contains one of the densest Arab communities outside of the Middle East.  Each day, the local mosque's call to prayer can be clearly heard all over the city.  Dearborn is a clear example of why we can no longer call America a "Christian nation".

But Islam is not the only non-Christian religion that is growing rapidly in America.

The latest U.S. Religion Census found that non-Christian groups grew by 32 percent overall from the year 2000 to the year 2010.

Meanwhile, as I have written about previously, the decline of Christianity in America is accelerating.

Back in 1990, one survey found that 86 percent of all Americans identified themselves as "Christian" of one sort or another.

By 2008, only 76 percent of all Americans identified themselves as "Christian" of one sort or another.

Meanwhile, atheism and the "not religious" are experiencing huge gains in numbers.  For example, the U.S. Census Bureau says that the number of Americans with "no religion" more than doubled between 1990 and 2008.

Even many of those that still apply the label of "Christian" to themselves are not very committed.  The latest U.S. Religion Census found that approximately 150 million Americans are not actively engaged with any religious community at all.  That is nearly half of the population.

So America is changing.

It is becoming less religious and it is becoming less Christian.

–The American Dream

If I Were the Devil - (BEST VERSION)

by PAUL HARVEY audio restored Broadcasted April 3, 1965

Any Similarities To Today’s World?

Why Does Religion Always Get a Free Ride?

We try to persuade people out of almost every kind of idea there is. Why should religion be the exception?

Why should religion, alone among all other kinds of ideas, be free from attempts to persuade people out of it?

We try to persuade people out of ideas all the time. We try to persuade people that their ideas about science, politics, philosophy, art, medicine, and more, are wrong: that they're harmful, ridiculous, repulsive, or simply mistaken. But when it comes to religion, trying to persuade people out of their ideas is somehow seen as horribly rude at best, invasive and bigoted and intolerant at worst. Why? Why should religion be the exception?

I've been writing about atheism for about six years now. In those six years, I've asked this question more times and not once have I gotten a satisfying answer. In fact, only once do I recall getting any answer at all. Besides that one exception, what I've gotten in response has been crickets chirping and tumbleweeds blowing by. I've been ignored, I've had the subject changed, I've had people get personally nasty, I've had people abandon the conversation altogether. But only once have I ever gotten any kind of actual answer. And that answer sucked. (I'll get to it in a bit.) I've heard lots of people tell me, at length and with great passion, that trying to persuade people out of their religion is bad and wrong and mean... but I haven't seen a single real argument explaining why this is such a terrible thing to do with religion, and yet is somehow perfectly okay to do with all other ideas.

So I want to get to the heart of this matter. Why should religion be treated differently from all other kinds of ideas? Why shouldn't we criticize it, and make fun of it, and try to persuade people out of it, the way we do with every other kind of idea?

In a free society, in the marketplace of ideas, we try to persuade people out of ideas all the time. We criticize ideas we disagree with; we question ideas we find puzzling; we excoriate ideas we find repugnant; we make fun of ideas we think are silly. And we think this is acceptable. In fact, we think it's positively good. We think this is how good ideas rise to the surface, and bad ideas get filtered out. We might have issues with exactly how this persuasion is carried out: is it done politely or rudely, reasonably or hysterically, did you really have to bring it up at Thanksgiving dinner, etc. But the basic idea of trying to convince other people that your ideas are right and theirs are wrong... this is not controversial.

Except when it comes to religion.

Why?

Religion is an idea about the world. Thousands of different ideas, really, but with one basic idea at the core of them all: the idea of the supernatural. Religion is the hypothesis that the world is the way that it is, entirely or in part, because of supernatural beings or forces acting on the natural world. It's an idea about how the world works -- every bit as much as the germ theory of disease, or the theory that matter is made up of atoms, or the wacky notion that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

And religion is a very specific kind of idea about the world. Religion is a truth claim. It's not a subjective matter of personal experience or opinion, like, "I'm a one-woman man," or "Harry Potter is better than Lord of the Rings." It is a statement about what is and is not literally true in the non-subjective world.

So if we think it's a mistaken idea, why shouldn't we try to convince other people of that?

We do this with every other kind of truth claim. If people think that disease is caused by demonic possession, or that global climate change is a hoax, or that deregulating the financial industry will lead to a robustly healthy economy for all levels of society -- and we think these people are wrong -- we try to change their minds. Why should religion be any different?

Now, of course, religion is more than just an idea. People build communities, personal identities, support systems, coping mechanisms, entire life philosophies, around their religious beliefs.

But people build identities around other ideas, too. People have intense political identities, for instance: people are often deeply attached to their identity as a progressive, a Republican or a libertarian. People build communities around these ideas, and support systems, and coping mechanisms, and life philosophies. And we still think it's entirely valid, and even positively worthwhile, to try to change people's minds about these ideas if we think they're wrong.

Why should religion be any different?

It's also the case that letting go of religious beliefs can be upsetting, even traumatic. In the short term anyway. Most atheists say that they're happy to have let go of their religion... but many do go through a short period of trauma while they're letting go.

But it can be upsetting, and even traumatic, to let go of all kinds of ideas. It can be upsetting and traumatic to learn that the clothes and chocolate and electronics you're buying are made by slave labor; that the food you're feeding your children is bad for them; that you have unconscious racist or sexist attitudes; that driving your car is contributing to global climate change and the possible permanent destruction of the environment.

And yet we still think it's valid, and even positively worthwhile, to try to change people's minds about these ideas if we think they're wrong.

Why should religion be any different?

Yes, there's a tremendous diversity of religious ideas -- a diversity that makes up a large part of our complex cultural tapestry. But we have a tremendous diversity of ideas about politics, too... and about science, and race, and gender, and sexuality, and more. When we look at our history, our complex cultural tapestry has included alchemy, and Jim Crow laws, and preventing women from voting, and curing the "disease" of masturbation, and treating yellow fever epidemics by shooting cannonballs into the air. The world is better off without those ideas. We still have a rich cultural tapestry of diverse lifestyles and worldviews without them. And we still think it was entirely valid, and even positively worthwhile, to try to change people's minds about these ideas when we thought they were wrong.

Why should religion be any different?

It's also true that persuading people out of their religion is often seen as proselytizing or evangelizing. Proselytizing or evangelizing about religion has a bad reputation. And there are good reasons for that. Religious evangelists have an ugly history of fearmongering, deception, outright lying, applying economic pressure, using law or force or even violence, to "persuade" people out of their religious beliefs. Not to mention the little matter of knocking on people's doors at eight o'clock on Saturday morning. It's no wonder people are resistant to it.

But if that's not what atheists are advocating? If we're not advocating any sort of force or coercion, or even any sort of pressure apart from the mild social pressure created by people not wanting to look foolish by hanging onto bad ideas? If what we're advocating is writing blog posts, writing magazine articles, writing books, wearing T-shirts, putting up billboards, getting into conversations with our friends and families, getting into debates on Facebook? If what we're advocating is getting our atheist ideas more widely disseminated and understood, and creating atheist communities so people who share our ideas feel safer expressing them? If what we're advocating is essentially standing up and saying, "The emperor has no clothes" -- and offering the best evidence and arguments we can for the emperor's nakedness?

What is so terrible about that? We do that with every other kind of idea. Why shouldn't we do it with religion?

Why should religion be any different?

And it's certainly true that, throughout history, many attempts to "persuade" people out of their religion have resulted in persecution -- or have provided the rationalization for it. Human beings have an ugly, bloody, terrible history of persecuting each other over religious differences: anti-Catholic hostility in America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, anti-Muslim hostility in much of Europe today, the Crusades, the Holocaust... the list goes on. And religious persecution often goes hand-in-hand with classism, jingoistic nationalism, ethnic hatreds, and racism -- rendering it even uglier. A lot of people can only see persuading people out of religion in this context of persecution, and are horrified by it. And while I disagree with their ultimate analysis, I can certainly understand their horror.

But religion isn't the only idea whose adherents have historically been targeted with persecution. Political ideas certainly have been. To take an obvious example: Look at Communism. People who thought Communism was a good idea had their lives utterly destroyed. Even if they weren't actually trying to overthrow the government. Even if all they were doing was writing, or creating art, or gassing on in cafes with their friends. Even if they weren't really Communists. McCarthyism and other Red scares destroyed the lives of countless people who were simply suspected of being Communists. And like religious persecution, anti-Communist fervor has often been closely tied with nationalism, ethnic hostilities, and more. Immigrants from Eastern Europe, for instance, were often feared and despised as "dirty Commies," with the political hostility becoming inextricably tangled with the xenophobic nationalism, and each form of hostility feeding the other.

Does that mean we shouldn't criticize Communism? Does that mean that, if we think Communism isn't a particularly good system for structuring an economy, we should just keep our mouths shut?

When we criticize religion -- just as when we criticize any other kind of idea -- we do need to make sure that criticism of the idea doesn't turn into persecution of its adherents. We need to draw a careful line between criticizing ideas and marginalizing people. We need to remember that people who disagree with us are still people, deserving of basic compassion and respect.

But we need to draw that line with every kind of idea. Political, scientific, artistic ideas -- all of them. And we don't exempt any other kind of idea from criticism, just because that kind of idea has often been targeted with persecution.

Why should religion be any different?

Why should religion be treated any differently from any other kind of idea about the world? Why, alone among all other ideas, should it be protected from criticism, questions, mockery when it's ridiculous, excoriation when it's appalling? Why, alone among all other ideas, should we not try to persuade people out of it if we think it's mistaken?

Why should religion be the exception?

I've asked this question more times than I can remember. And I've only ever gotten one straight answer. In one argument on Facebook (which was ages ago, so unfortunately I can't find it and link to it), the person I was debating argued that religious debates and disagreements have a bad history. All too often, they've led to hostility, hatred, tribalism, bigotry, even violence and wars. Therefore, he argued, it was best to just avoid debates about the topic altogether.

You know what? He's right. When it comes to the divisiveness of religion, he's totally right.

And that's an argument for my side -- not his.

I completely agree with his basic assessment. Religion does tend to be more divisive than other topics. It's a point Daniel Dennet made in his book, Breaking the Spell: In a weird but very real psychological paradox, people tend to defend ideas more ferociously when we don't have very good evidence supporting them.

Look at it this way. If people come over the hill and tell us that the sky is orange, we can clearly see that the sky is blue... so we can easily shrug off their ridiculous idea, and we don't feel a powerful need to defend our own perception. But if people come over the hill and tell us that God comes in three parts, one of whom is named Jesus, and this three-in-one god really wants us not to eat meat on Fridays -- and we think there is no god but Allah, and he really wants us to never eat pork or draw pictures of real things -- we don't have any way to settle the disagreement. The only evidence supporting our belief is, "My parents tell me," My religious leader tells me," "My holy book tells me," or "I feel it in my heart." And if we care about our belief -- if it's not some random trivial opinion, if it's central to our personal and social identity -- we have a powerful tendency to double down, to entrench ourselves more deeply and more passionately in our belief. We can't have a rational, evidence-based debate about the matter. The only way to defend our own belief is with bigotry, tribalism, and violence.

But if religious differences really are more likely to lead to bigotry, tribalism, violence, etc.... doesn't that show what a bad idea it is? If the ideas of religion are so poorly rooted in reality that there's no way to resolve differences other than forming battle lines and screaming or shooting across them... doesn't that strongly suggest that this is a truly crappy idea, and humanity should let go of it? Doesn't that suggest that persuading people out of it is a really good thing to do?

So yeah. This wasn't such a great answer. But at least it was an answer. At least it wasn't a changing of the topic, a moving of the goalposts, a deterioration into personal insult, a complete abandonment of the conversation altogether. Every other time that I've asked, "Why should religion, alone among all other kinds of ideas, be free from attempts to persuade people out of it?" I've been met with what was essentially silence.

I've gotten tremendous hostility over the years for my attempts to persuade people out of religion. I've been called a racist and a cultural imperialist, trying to stamp out the beautiful tapestry of human diversity and make everyone in the world exactly like me. I've been called a fascist, have been compared to Stalin and Glenn Beck. My atheist activism has been compared to the genocide of the Native Americans. I've even been called "evil in one of its purest forms" -- as have many other atheist writers; I'm hardly the only target of this. All this, for trying to persuade people that their idea is mistaken, and our idea is correct. The atheism itself gets hostile opposition as well, of course: it gets called immoral, amoral, hopeless, meaningless, joyless, and more. But the very idea of presuming to engage in this debate -- the very idea of putting religion on one side of a chessboard and atheism on the other, and seeing which one gets check-mated -- is regularly treated as a bigoted and intolerant violation of the basic principles of human discourse.

And yet when I ask why -- why it's okay to persuade people out of other ideas but not this one, why religion alone should be exempt from the vigorous criticism that every other idea is expected to stand up to, why religion alone should get a free ride in the marketplace of ideas (and a free ride in an armored car at that), why religion should be the sole exception -- I've only ever gotten one crappy answer, one time.

Does anyone have a better answer?

Or any answer at all?

-Greta Christina-AlterNet

Was Jesus a Lunatic?

Albert Schweitzer, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1952 for his humanitarian efforts, had his own views about Jesus. Schweitzer concluded that insanity was behind Jesus’ claim to be God. In other words, Jesus was wrong about his claims but didn’t intentially lie. According to this theory, Jesus was deluded into actually believing he was the Messiah.

As a skeptic, Oxford scholar C. S. Lewis realized that Jesus was either a liar, lunatic, or the real thing. He writes, “He would either be a lunatic–on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg–or else he would be the Devil of Hell.”[1]

But even those most skeptical of Christianity rarely question Jesus’ sanity. Social reformer william Channing (1780-1842), admittedly not a Christian, stated that the idea that Jesus was self-deluded is the most absurd title we could give him.[2] Nothing Jesus said or did point to any mental instability.

Even the great skeptic Rousseau acknowledged Jesus’ superior character and mental balance, writing, “What presence of mind. … Yes, if the life and death of Socrates are those of a philosopher, the life and death of Jesus Christ are those of a God.”[3]

Historian Philip Schaff posed the question we must ask ourselves: “Is such an intellect–thoroughly healthy and vigorous, always ready and always self-possessed–liable to a radical and most serious delusion concerning his own character and mission?”[4]

So, was Jesus a liar or a lunatic, or was he the Son of God? Could Thomas Jefferson have been right by labeling Jesus “only a good moral teacher” while denying him deity? Interestingly, the audience who heard Jesus–both believers and enemies–never regarded him as a mere moral teacher. Jesus produced three primary effects in the people who met him: hatred, terror, or adoration.

It is the claims of Jesus Christ that force us to make a choice about who he is. We can’t just cut and paste Jesus and his words, like Jefferson attempted to do. Lewis writes,

You must make your choice: either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”[5]

The apostle Paul originally thought Jesus was an imposter, and as a Jewish leader, severely persecuted Christians. But later he came to a much different conclusion, as he writes to the young church at Philippi:

Though he was God….he appeared in human form.[6]

The entire message of Jesus’ life and words is only valid if his claims about himself are true. If they are true, then his words about life and purpose command our utmost attention. As Lewis says, each of us must make our own choice about the most significant life who ever existed. Who do you say Jesus is? -God Resources

____________________

[1] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1972), 52.

[2] Quoted in Josh McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict (San bernardino, CA: Here’s Life, 1999), 161, 162.

[3] Quoted in McDowell, New Evidence, 122, 129.

[4] Quoted in McDowell, New Evidence, 162.

[5] Lewis, 52.

[6] Philippians 2:6,7.

Civility

"Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord..." -Hebrews 12:14

Last week, I parked my car in the lot behind my bank, and walked up the sidewalk to its back door. There's a series of three glass doors that I pass through to get to the bank lobby. It just so happened, that during this particular visit, when I arrived at each of the three doors (10 to 20 feet apart), there was a different woman at each door either entering or exiting herself...who actually held the door for me - three times!

Of course, I said "thank you" each time...but, I couldn't help but think back on the way I had been raised and how things had certainly changed since those childhood days. My parents taught me very clearly to "always hold (or open) a door for a lady"...ALWAYS. And, I have...always.

But now, ladies are holding doors for me! Maybe I look "old" to them...(I am now 62). Maybe I appear weak and frail? I don't know. But, the older I get, the more I sense constant change around me. It used to be that a woman would enter or exit a building letting the door close. Now they look around more to see if someone, anyone else, is in the vicinity...

"Pursue peace with all people...," the Bible tells us.

I agree. It doesn't really matter whom is being civil to whom...it really shouldn't matter that a woman might hold a door for an older man...in fact, it's great to model these civil courtesies to our children, someone else's children, or even other adults.

Simple civil courtesies provide each of us key opportunities to express Christ's love outside our usual close circle of friends or family relationships. I'm always kind and loving to those I love - those closest to me - and I know these persons also embrace my faith. But, when we're out in the community, only touching on the fringes of relationships with others...then our willingness to open or hold a door for someone, or stop to pick up someone's dropped car keys or pocket change, or just sharing a spoken "please" or "thank you" allows people to catch a glimpse of Christ in you and me. –By Jim Coleman-Hour of Power

Can you remember a time when you could have helped someone in a simple way, but didn't? What stopped you? Has it happened again? What's your favorite way to express God's love to strangers?

We Should Practice What We Preach

Revealed: Publisher Owned By The Catholic Church Sells Pornography

Germany's bishops promise to stop the company's distribution of erotic novels
Germany's biggest Catholic-owned publishing house has been rocked by disclosures that it has been selling thousands of pornographic novels with titles such as Sluts Boarding School and Lawyer's Whore with the full assent of the country's leading bishops.

The revelations made in the publishing-industry newsletter Buchreport concern Weltbild, a company with an annual €1.7bn (£1.5bn) turnover and 6,400 employees. It is Germany's largest bookseller after Amazon and wholly owned by the Catholic Church.

Buchreport revealed that Weltbild's massive assortment of titles available to customers online includes some 2,500 "erotic" books with unmistakably lewd titles including Call Me Slut!, Take Me Here, Take Me Now! and Lawyer's Whore, to name a few. The publisher's website also pictures the titles' lascivious dust jackets that feature colour photographs of scantily clad women in high heels and erotic underwear.

Yesterday, Carel Haff, Weltbild's managing director, was quoted as saying that the revelations had provoked "a very intense and critical dialogue" within the company. He said discussions were under way about possibly limiting the assortment of titles that would be available in future.

Catholic bishops responded with a statement claiming that "a filtering system failure" at the publishing house had allowed the books to stray on to the market. "We will put a stop to the distribution of possibly pornographic content in future," they said.

But Bernhard Müller, editor of the Catholic magazine PUR, dismissed the clerics' reaction as grossly hypocritical. He alleged that the pornography scandal at Weltbild had been going on for at least a decade with the Church's full knowledge. Mr Müller said that in 2008, a group of concerned Catholics had sent bishops a 70-page document containing irrefutable evidence that Weltbild published books that promoted pornography, Satanism and magic. They demanded that the publisher withdraw the titles.

But their protests appear to have been completely ignored. Writing in the Die Welt newspaper, Mr Müller said most of the bishops refused to respond to the charges. "The sudden proclaimed astonishment of many church leaders that pornographic material is being distributed by their publishing house, is play acting – bad play acting," Mr Müller said. "Believers have been complaining to their bishops about this for years."

The Catholic Church bought Weltbild more than 30 years ago. The publisher has gradually transformed itself into one of Germany's largest media companies with the help of some €182mof Catholic Church tax levied on believers. To increase its profits, in 1998 the company merged with five other publishing houses that market pornographic titles. One of them is Droemer Knaur, which is 50 per cent church-owned. Another is Blue Panther Books, which was excluded from the list of participating publishers at this year's Frankfurt Book Fair allegedly because of the pornographic content of is titles.

It emerged yesterday that in an attempt to clear itself of potential embarrassment over the sale of porn, the Catholic Church tried to sell Weltbild in 2009. But the bishops apparently abandoned the idea after they failed to get the price they were asking. –Independent

Ragbag Headliners

‘Don’t Say Gay’ One Step Closer In Tennessee

House lawmakers this week [April 19, 2012] advanced the controversial “Don’t Say Gay” bill, moving it forward from a House Education committee on a 8-7 vote.

Reports The Tennessean:

Bill sponsor Rep. Joey Hensley, R-Hohenwald, and others argued that outside groups and some teachers slip those conversations in, and the bill serves as an accountability reminder.

“I have two children — in the third- and fourth-grade — and don’t want them to be exposed to things I don’t agree with,” Hensley said. “… Even though the state board disallows this now, I’m afraid it does happen, and sex education is talked about in a way that it is acceptable.”

Rep. Joe Carr, R-Lascassas, who voted for the bill, said he’s seen documentation that outside groups are entering classrooms at the invitation of principals and teachers and not staying within the curriculum guidelines.
“And they should,” he said after the vote.

Schools caught in violation of the state’s sex education policies can have state money withheld, and teachers face a $50 fine and up to 30 days in jail, according to state law. The bill passed the Senate last year.

Supporters of the bill have not so far been able to produce proof that the bill is needed, they’ve simply made accusations that teachers are flouting the rules.

Interestingly, not all Republican lawmakers voted in favor, highlighting that there are still deep concerns about the bill and specifically over whether it will actually serve to inadvertently introduce sex education to K-8 in a state that has vigorously opposed such moves.

The legislation would originally have banned all mention of sexuality in K-8. The amended bill as passed by the Senate last year aims to reduce that reach, confining teachers to talking about sexuality only in terms of “natural human reproduction science.”

However, the bill has offered no explanation of what that should mean. Does it, for instance, ban mention of IVF treatment? And does it effectively allow for sex education for K-8 students?

Due to these concerns, the bill had been held back with another measure requiring so-called “family life education” with an abstinence only bent being a focus, but now it seems the bill’s chief supporter, Rep. Hensley, wants one last chance at making “Don’t Say Gay” the law of the land before the end of the session.

As for the Republican governor Bill Haslam, he has spoken out three times to remind lawmakers they should be concentrating on issues like the economy.

Critics have said the legislation, even in its modified form, will have a chilling effect on how teachers deal with anti-LGBT bullying, that it is entirely unnecessary given that Tennessee already has a strict no sex education before highschool policy, and that it is simply about pushing a conservative religious agenda.

The bill now goes to a calendar committee before a full floor vote.

Tennessee of course recently passed a bill to allow teachers to instruct on Creationism as an alternative to scientific fact and advanced a bill describing hand-holding as gateway sexual activity. –Care2

<><><>*<><><>

Catholic Bishops Call For Civil Disobedience Against Obama Mandate

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has taken a bold stand for religious freedom. In a recent statement, titled “Our First, Most Cherished Liberty,” the bishops call for repeal of contraception coverage mandated by the Department of Health and Human Services. The clarified position sets up a dramatic confrontation with the Obama administration—and would, if the bishops prevail, help preserve the religious liberty of all Americans.

The HHS mandate requires employers to provide insurance coverage for contraception and sterilization services. It is, according to the bishops, an “unjust law.” They write: “It cannot be obeyed and therefore one does not seek relief from it, but rather its repeal.”

The statement is a rebuke of President Obama and the so-called accommodation his administration proposed in February. It also raises the stakes between the president and the leaders of America’s Catholic Church.

The bishops call on Catholics in America, “in solidarity with our fellow citizens,” not to obey the law. They implicitly compare the HHS regulation to a segregation-era statute, and even cite Martin Luther Kind Jr.’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” In a not-so-subtle manner, the bishops tell the Obama administration that they are willing to go to prison rather than comply with the mandate’s provisions. –American Vision News

<><><>*<><><>

Court In Rio De Janeiro Recognizes Right To Gay Marriage

A Rio De Janerio judge, in a first for the region, has granted a same-sex couple the right to have their civil union upgraded to a marriage.

Reports On Top Magazine:

Judge Luiz Felipe Francisco said Brazilian law does not prohibit marriage between members of the same sex.

“As there is no explicit barrier to marriage between two people of the same sex, it would be contrary to principles enshrined in the Constitution, such as equality, human dignity and pluralism [to deny the request,]” a statement reads.

The couple asked the court last October to recognize their civil union — referred to as a “stable union” in Brazil — as a marriage. It is the first such decision in the state of Rio de Janeiro and the latest victory in recent months for gay marriage advocates in Latin America’s most populous nation.

Previously, other couples have successfully petitioned to have their unions recognized as marriages but not all judges have interpreted the country’s laws to include equal access to marriage.

Currently only Mexico City and Alagoas officially allow for same-sex marriages. However, due to a high court ruling, all states must recognize legal same-sex marriages that were carried out in other regions so as to ensure that same-sex couples’  partnership and parental rights are upheld when travelling through the country.—Care2

Time To Stop Treating Muslims Like Children

My new book, “Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry Into Islam’s Obscure Origins,” is out this week, and it has already aroused anger among Muslims: A Muslim writer named Hussein Rashid, who is an instructor at the Center for Spiritual Inquiry at Park Avenue Christian Church, fulminated in Religion Dispatches that my book on Muhammad will win praise only from the “Islamophobia industry” – as if the book itself were a manifestation of hatred and bigotry.

I’m reminded of the words of the Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh as the Islamic jihadist Mohammed Bouyeri began sawing his head off in retaliation for his film “Submission” about the plight of Muslim women: “Can’t we talk about this?” No, we can’t. In America, speaking unpopular truths about Islam won’t get you murdered, but it will get you consigned to the outer darkness, where hatemongers and bigots weep and gnash their teeth. Many people wouldn’t dare write (or read) a book entitled “Did Muhammad Exist?” for fear of getting Muslims angry and getting called names.

I, on the other hand, am determined to respect Muslims and treat them as adults. In fact, that’s why I wrote “Did Muhammad Exist?” – for I believe that even in the politically correct United States of 2012, we should be able to discuss in an adult manner the historical evidence for and against the existence of Muhammad. The Scriptures and religious figures of Judaism and Christianity have been subjected to searching historical scrutiny since the 18th century. No one riots, no one threatens, no one gets killed as a result of these investigations – no one rails against the “Judeophobia industry” or “Christianophobia industry.” To be sure, some historical critics have been motivated by an animus toward the religion they’re studying, but no one in the West is interfering with their right to undertake such study. Only around Islam does the scholarly community walk on eggshells.

It’s time to stop. Not only should the quest for the historical Muhammad be carried on in our nation’s universities, but we should dare to treat Muslims as adults in other ways as well. Instead of politically correct obfuscation about the political and supremacist aspects of Islam, there should be a vigorous public debate about the ways in which Islamic law, Shariah, is incompatible with pluralistic democracy, and the ways in which Islam is incompatible with Western ideas of human rights.

Moreover, as adults we ought not to have to make patronizing references to the “Noble People of Afghanistan,” as Gen. John Allen did in his embarrassingly obsequious apology to the Afghans for the inadvertent burning of Qurans on a NATO base. As adults we ought not to have to pretend that the “Arab Spring” is a glorious flowering of freedom when in fact it is a series of pro-Shariah Islamic-supremacist takeovers.

If we treat Muslims as adults instead of as children, we will not turn our heads and pretend that we don’t see when Muslims in Nigeria burn churches and brutalize Christians. Nor will we ignore the Muslim persecution of Christians in Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan and elsewhere. If we treat Muslims as adults, we will not turn a blind eye when Saudi Arabia executes women for sorcery. We will not turn our heads and pretend we don’t see when Muslim countries execute homosexuals. We will not pretend that the Muslim women around the world, and increasingly in the U.S., who are victims of honor killings do not exist and never did exist. Nor will we refuse to listen when Iran makes genocidal threats against Israel.

No, if we really treat Muslims with respect, then we will hold them to the same standard as everyone else. We will not kowtow before their expressions of anger and outrage, or curtail our speech or our thoughts in the face of their irrational and manipulative charges of “bigotry” and “hatred.” We will expect them to understand that in a pluralistic society such as ours, we all have to put up with things we don’t like without killing or threatening or defaming one another.

“Did Muhammad Exist?” is a book that asks legitimate historical questions that a few courageous scholars have been working on for quite some time. Let’s accord Muslims the respect we would automatically give to anyone else, and treat them as adults who are able to abide the possibility of such historical questions being asked – rather than as tantrum-inclined children around which we all must tiptoe. For insofar as we bow before false labeling or even physical intimidation, we are that much less free. –WND

Foot Note: Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times best-sellers, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)” and “The Truth About Muhammad.” His latest book, “Did Muhammad Exist?”, is now available.

Fair Oaks Farms Adventure Center - America's Heartland

^^^*^^^

This is a very interesting and educational video, especially if you didn't grow up on a farm. And if you did grow up on a farm, it surely must not have been anything like this one!

Declaration On The Torah Approach To Homosexuality

Societal Developments On Homosexuality

There has been a monumental shift in the secular world’s attitude towards homosexuality over the past few decades. In particular over the past fifteen years there has been a major public campaign to gain acceptance for homosexuality. Legalizing same-sex marriage has become the end goal of the campaign to equate homosexuality with heterosexuality.

A propaganda blitz has been sweeping the world using political tactics to persuade the public about the legitimacy of homosexuality. The media is rife with negative labels implying that one is “hateful” or “homophobic” if they do not accept the homosexual lifestyle as legitimate. This political coercion has silenced many into acquiescence. Unfortunately this attitude has seeped into the Torah community and many have become confused or have accepted the media’s portrayal of this issue.

The Torah’s Unequivocal And Eternal Message

The Torah makes a clear statement that homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle or a genuine identity by severely prohibiting its conduct. Furthermore, the Torah, ever prescient about negative secular influences, warns us in Vayikra (Leviticus) 20:23 “Do not follow the traditions of the nations that I expel from before you…” Particularly the Torah writes this in regards to homosexuality and other forbidden sexual liaisons.

Same-Sex Attractions Can Be Modified And Healed

From a Torah perspective, the question whether homosexual inclinations and behaviors are changeable is extremely relevant. The concept that G-d created a human being who is unable to find happiness in a loving relationship unless he violates a biblical prohibition is neither plausible nor acceptable. G-d is loving and merciful. Struggles, and yes, difficult struggles, along with healing and personal growth are part and parcel of this world. Impossible, life long, Torah prohibited situations with no achievable solutions are not.

We emphatically reject the notion that a homosexually inclined person cannot overcome his or her inclination and desire. Behaviors are changeable. The Torah does not forbid something which is impossible to avoid. Abandoning people to lifelong loneliness and despair by denying all hope of overcoming and healing their same-sex attraction is heartlessly cruel. Such an attitude also violates the biblical prohibition in Vayikra (Leviticus) 19:14 “and you shall not place a stumbling block before the blind.”

The Process Of Healing

The only viable course of action that is consistent with the Torah is therapy and teshuvah. The therapy consists of reinforcing the natural gender-identity of the individual by helping him or her understand and repair the emotional wounds that led to its disorientation and weakening, thus enabling the resumption and completion of the individual’s emotional development. Teshuvah is a Torah-mandated, self-motivated process of turning away from any transgression or sin and returning to G-d and one’s spiritual essence. This includes refining and reintegrating the personality and allowing it to grow in a healthy and wholesome manner.

These processes are typically facilitated and coordinated with the help of a specially trained counselor or therapist working in conjunction with a qualified spiritual teacher or guide. There is no other practical, Torah-sanctioned solution for this issue.

The Mitzvah Of Love And Compassion

It requires tremendous bravery and fortitude for a person to confront and deal with same-sex attraction. For example a sixteen-year-old who is struggling with this issue may be confused and afraid and not know whom to speak to or what steps to take. We must create an atmosphere where this teenager (or anyone) can speak freely to a parent, rabbi, or mentor and be treated with love and compassion. Authority figures can then guide same-sex strugglers towards a path of healing and overcoming their inclinations.

The key point to remember is that these individuals are primarily innocent victims of childhood emotional wounds. They deserve our full love, support and encouragement in their striving towards healing. Struggling individuals who seek health and wellness should not be confused with the homosexual movement and their agenda. This distinction is crucial. It reflects the difference between what G-d asks from all of us and what He unambiguously prohibits.

We need to do everything in our power to lovingly uplift struggling individuals towards a full and healthy life that is filled with love, joy and the wisdom of the Torah. –Torah Declaration

Foot Note: Lo Saamod - Do Not Stand By, is a website focused on fulfilling the Torah commandment that obligates us to not stand idly by while a false belief may irreparably destroy a person’s ability to build a bayis ne’eman be’yisroel (a lasting and kosher Jewish home).

Actively speaking up is vital in order to prevent the terrible harm and suffering to individuals who may erroneously conclude that if they have Same-Sex Attractions (SSA) there is no hope or possibility for them to change and live a Torah sanctioned life. Change is possible and mandated by the Torah.

High Court Ruling Landmark For Religion

Justices allow firing of teacher by church in bias case brought by government

Religious organizations won a landmark victory Wednesday as the Supreme Court held that churches have the right to make employment decisions free from government interference over discrimination laws.

In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court endorsed for the first time the “ministerial exception” to state and federal employment discrimination laws while rejecting the Obama administration’s argument that churches should be treated no differently than other employers.

“The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important. But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission,” said Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who wrote the court’s 39-page opinion.

“When a minister who has been fired sues her church alleging that her termination was discriminatory, the First Amendment has struck the balance for us,” Chief Justice Roberts said. “The church must be free to choose those who will guide it on its way.”

Allowing former employees to file anti-discrimination lawsuits “could end up forcing churches to take religious leaders they no longer want,” he said.

Advocates of religious liberty hailed the ruling as a crucial win for churches in the face of government encroachment.

“We are pleased that the Supreme Court rejected the Obama administration’s profoundly troubling claim of power over churches, and glad to see that the Supreme Court has stayed out of the Lutheran Church’s affairs and allowed its internal rules as a body of believers to stand,” said Ken Klukowski, director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the Family Research Council.

The case, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, centered on a former teacher, Cheryl Perich, who argued that she was fired from the Missouri Synod Lutheran school in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Mrs. Perich had been promoted from a temporary lay teacher to a “called” teacher in 2000, but had taken leave after being diagnosed with narcolepsy. School officials refused to hire her back because they had already replaced her with a substitute for the year. After she threatened to sue to get her job back, the Redford, Mich., church fired her, saying using secular courts to solve an interchurch issue violated its teaching on resolving such disputes.

After the EEOC sued on her behalf, a federal judge threw out the lawsuit, holding that her firing fell under the law’s ministerial exception. But the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in her favor, holding that the ministerial exception failed to apply because Mrs. Perdich taught primarily secular subjects.

The high court overturned the Circuit Court, concluding that the constitution’s free exercise and establishment clauses protect a church’s ability to select its leadership and lower-level employees.

The EEOC had argued that the ministerial exception would give churches “unfettered discretion” to violate employment laws, such as by hiring children or undocumented workers, or retaliating against employees who report criminal misconduct. The court refused to rule on those issues, expressing “no view on whether the exception bars other types of suits.”

“It is enough for us to conclude, in this, our first case involving the ministerial exception, that the exception covers Perich, given all the circumstances of her employment,” Chief Justice Roberts said.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which argued the case before the Supreme Court, called it “the most important religious liberty case in 20 years.”

“The message of today’s opinion is clear: The government can’t tell a church who should be teaching its religious message,” said Luke Goodrich, Becket deputy national litigation director, who called the decision “a rebuke to the government, which was trying to regulate how churches select their ministers.”

Walter Weber, an attorney for the American Center for Law and Justice, which filed an amicus brief in support of the church, said the court’s unanimous decision — both the liberal and conservative wings of the court ruled against the agency — could be chalked up to legal overreach by the EEOC.

“You could argue that this teacher was beyond the scope of the ministerial exception,” Mr. Weber said. “The problem with the EEOC brief was that they argued that there should be no ministerial exception at all. … Their argument went way too far.”

The EEOC did not respond to a request for comment, though liberal-leaning church-state separation groups lamented it.

“Clergy who are fired for reasons unrelated to matters of theology — no matter how capricious or venal those reasons may be — have just had the courthouse door slammed in their faces,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. –The Washington Times

Atheist Group Misquotes Jefferson On Billboard

Backyard Skeptics, another misguided atheist group, is unveiled a billboard in Orange County, California with a picture of Thomas Jefferson next to a quotation that they attribute to him.  The quotation reads, “I do not find in Christianity one redeeming feature, it is founded on fables and mythology.”

The skeptic group is already coming under attack by Christians and conservatives claiming that Jefferson never said or wrote what Backyard Skeptics attribute to him. When questioned about the authenticity of the quotation, the group’s director, Bruce Gleason, admitted that they had not verified the quotation before paying for the billboard

Gleason also admitted that the Jefferson Library Collection in Monticello is the leading authority on Jefferson and his quotations. And it turns out that the Jefferson Library Collection has no record of it.  They do list it on their website, but it is listed in a section of dubious quotations.

Raising the quotation’s origin brings one to a book Six Historic Americans by John E. Remsburg.  According to Remsburg’s book, the quotation came from a letter written by Jefferson to a Dr. Woods. Yet, the Jefferson Library Collection has no record of a Dr Woods or of Jefferson ever writing to such a person.

Faced with the information on the dubious origin of the quotation, Backyard Skeptics are accepting Remsburg’s version to be accurate and will not take any action to alter or remove the quotation from the board.

I would strongly urge Backyard Skeptics and others who claim Jefferson was a deist to do some further research into his writings. Keep in mind that a deist believes that God created everything and then has no involvement in His creation.

I contend that Jefferson was not a deist but did believe in God, although some of his views on Christianity were quite liberal as are many in the church today. Jefferson was not an atheist, so it’s surprising that an atheist group would use him to support their cause. Here are some quotations from Jefferson along with the references. Note his use of the Bible, God’s providence, and prayer (“supplications”) for political guidance:

“I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land, and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with his providence, and our riper years with his wisdom and power; and to whose goodness I ask you to join with me in supplications, that he will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures, that whatsoever they do, shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations.”  Thomas Jefferson’s Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1805.

“The practice of morality being necessary for the well-being of society, he has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral precepts of Jesus, and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in his discourses.”  Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Fishback, Sept. 27, 1809. Albert Ellery Bergh, ed. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., Washington D.C., 1907, V. 12,  p.315.

“The Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of its benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind.”  Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Moses Robinson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, Washington D.C., 1907, V. 10, pp. 236-237.

“TO DOCTOR BENJAMIN RUSH.

Washington,

April 21, 1803.

Dear Sir,—In some of the delightful conversations with you, in the evenings of 1798-99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you, that one day or other, I would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other.”  Thomas Jefferson, To Benjamin Rush, 21 April, 1803, Albert Ellery Bergh, ed. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1905, V. 9, pp. 379-381.

If Jefferson was a deist, he never would have included those lines in his second inaugural address. A deist would never ask for the favor of that Being, or believed that He led our forefathers, or who covered the nation’s infancy with His providence, or would go to Him with supplications. Furthermore, how do they explain the words Jefferson wrote to Dr. Benjamin Rush? Why would Jefferson have ever written such things to one of the most prominent people of the day? Additionally, if Jefferson was a deist, he would not believe that Jesus was a real person or the Son of God, yet he admits that Jesus’ moral precepts are the best that can be patterned after.

Bruce Gleason and the Backyard Skeptics are just like all of the rest of the historical revisionists who first try to destroy the integrity of the men and women in American history and then do their best to start re-writing history to make it fit their godless beliefs.  What they end up with is nothing more than a fictional novel like Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code that many gullible people will believe to be true history when in reality it’s just a story.

So even though it has been pointed out to them that there is no proof or documentation that Jefferson ever uttered or penned the words on the billboard, they intend to keep it there and knowingly purport a lie to get their message out there. It reminds me of Isaiah 44:25 which reads:

“Who frustrates the signs of liars and makes fools of diviners, who turns wise men back and makes their knowledge foolish.” -Godfather Politics

MICHELANGELO

Personhood Amendment: Exposing The Myths

The art of deception has been used in conflicts for centuries. In the epic The Aeneid by Virgil, Greeks used a wooden horse to enter and besiege the city of Troy.

Today, pro-abortion forces are using the Trojan horses of misinformation and scare tactics to fight the passage of Amendment 26, a referendum that will appear on Mississippi's general election ballot on November 8. The measure would amend the state constitution to affirm that personhood begins at conception.

As Election Day approaches, lawyers, pastors, doctors and other pro-life leaders are warning Mississippians that believing the misinformation from the amendment's opponents will result in the continued killing of about 2,000 babies a year through abortion in the state.

That misinformation -- those "myths" -- includes the following:

    - Amendment 26 will ban all forms of birth control
    - Amendment 26 will ban in vitro fertilization
    - Amendment 26 bans abortion regardless of rape, incest or life of mother
    - Amendment 26 will deny access to life-saving treatment to pregnant women suffering from cancer
    - Amendment 26 criminalizes women who have a miscarriage

Below, a panel of experts responds to the misinformation that is being circulated about Amendment 26. The panel includes:

• Dr. Freda Bush, a board certified OB/GYN practicing at East Lakeland OB/GYN Association in Jackson, Mississippi, and outspoken supporter of Amendment 26

• Steve Crampton, vice president for legal affairs with Liberty Counsel and author of Amendment 26

• Brad Prewitt, executive director of YesOn26.net, an organization promoting the passage of Amendment 26

• Eric Webb, a board certified OB/GYN practicing in Tupelo, Mississippi, in obstetrics and gynecology

• Pat Vaughn, legal counsel for the American Family Association

• Dr. Bob Shearin, retired thoracic and cardiovascular surgeon in Mississippi

Myth: Amendment 26 will ban all forms of birth control

Bush: Personhood would not ban any contraception. And that's what I understand birth control's principal aim to be: It prevents conception from occurring. Now, the amendment would ban abortifacient pills. That is a pill that will end the life of a baby once it has been conceived. These include RU-486 and Ella because their purpose is to destroy an embryo after fertilization.

Crampton: The initial passage does not touch any right, industry or practice that is currently ongoing. Long term, if it is discovered that one oral contraceptive operates as an abortifacient and kills a living child, then I think it would be appropriate for the legislature to ban the sale of that contraceptive. That is a "some-day" occurrence because, as the American Association of Pro-Life OBGYNs says, there is no conclusive evidence any oral contraceptive operates in that way right now.

Webb: There are questions, or criteria, that can be objectively applied to discover if [a particular drug] should be considered a contraceptive or an abortifacient. The first of the criteria that must be met is that a woman using the contraceptive must be ovulating. If you have a contraceptive technique that reliably suppresses ovulation, there is no pregnancy, thus no abortion because ovulation must take place before a pregnancy can occur. Therefore, a medication that relies on suppressing ovulation would be considered a contraceptive and not touched by Amendment 26.

The second question that must be asked is whether or not there is a condition caused by the contraception that could plausibly cause a miscarriage if it does not suppress ovulation. For instance, you could use a condom. Condoms don't impair ovulation, but no one expects condoms to cause abortions simply because of how it works. It does not create a situation that would cause an abortion. If a medication allows an egg to be fertilized and then destroys it, it is an abortifacient and would cause the intentional death of an unborn baby. Therefore, it would be banned.

The third part of the criteria in determining whether or not a contraceptive is an abortifacient is the idea that there is already a high spontaneous rate of pregnancy loss. Not all ovulated eggs fertilize and not all fertilized eggs implant or survive to be successful live births. There is a fairly high, naturally occurring wastage rate of embryos. Even implanted pregnancies that are detectable, maybe one in five pregnancies, are going to spontaneously miscarry. If you have a contraceptive technique, it has to demonstrate a miscarriage rate higher than that. So, if there is already 20% fetal loss rate because of the way biology works, you have to demonstrate a particular method of medication is causing an increased rate of lost pregnancies.

The fourth is more of a qualifier. It is that the data you make the previous three assumptions on is reproducible. In this field, there is so much prejudice that you want to be able to confirm someone else's conclusions.

Myth: Amendment 26 will ban in vitro fertilization

Webb: The process of IVF involves two steps, basically. Step one is a woman going through an induction to produce eggs and then a procedure to collect those eggs. This is the most expensive and painful part of the process. It uses expensive medicines and is generally very uncomfortable. The second step is taking those eggs and mingling them in a laboratory setting with a donor's sperm, most of the time it is the husband's.

What fertilizes creates a new person we call an embryo. Within a day or two, doctors will place those embryos into a woman's uterus and give them an opportunity to implant.

Let's say for argument's sake doctors extract 12 eggs. Then they fertilize all those eggs to see what takes so they can have the best quality embryo. Let's say 75% are fertilized after this. Now we are down to nine embryos. Most IVF specialists do not want to transfer all nine at once because that leads to an "Octo-mom" situation. So they look at the best ones, let's say it's three. They then transfer all three because at most, the mother will have triplets and she can handle that. But if they only transfer one egg and it doesn't survive, the cycle in which she can get pregnant is wasted and the couple will have to wait for the next cycle. So now they have transferred three embryos into the mother's uterus and the rest are frozen in liquid nitrogen where they are kept in perpetuity, which can last 200 years. Now, the bottom third, if they do not look like good candidates, they are discarded, washed down the drain.

Prewitt: In the case of my wife and me, we had three eggs. We fertilized all three and implanted them. All three developed heartbeats and God claimed one of those, leaving us with two beautiful boys.

Vaughn: Right now, doctors may implant five eggs, fully intending that you are going to find out which two or three grow best and then cull out the weaker ones. This is killing that baby. Amendment 26 would stop that process in IVF.

Crampton: Ultimately, over time, Amendment 26 will result in additional regulation of IVF. We must keep in mind that men are not angels. James Madison said in the Federalist #51 that, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." But we are not angels and neither are doctors. Doctors need some governmental oversight to keep sinful natures under some type of control just like the average citizen. The truth is that, left to our own devices, we will engage in horrific conduct that will harm ourselves and others.

Myth: Amendment 26 bans abortion regardless of rape, incest or life of mother

Crampton: Legal minds are in two camps. One camp says Amendment 26 will ban abortion as soon as it is passed. The other camp feels there will need for enabling legislation or court opinions.

If we are going to be principled on the issue of life, and there is no excuse for not being so, we must not have any exception for abortion. Just as the Amendment refers to human life that's created even by cloning or in a test tube, that baby is fully alive and fully human. No matter how the conception was brought about or who the father is, that life is entitled to protection under that law. In fact, early in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the courts quickly noted when those who were pro-life said they were for exceptions, they weren't really pro-life. How can you say you will kill a baby if rape or incest caused the impregnation? We cannot punish the child for the sins of the father. So yes, it may cause some short-term hardship, but in the long term, we recognize that God alone is the creator of life.

Shearin: Somehow there has been an implied connection that aborting a child conceived in rape helps the mother. I ask those who propose that idea to show their evidence. Abortion is wrong in any case. I have heard testimony from women who have been beguiled by pro-abortionists for not aborting a child conceived in rape and they feel doubly victimized by that process.

We know incest is a terrible and heinous crime. But an abortion in that circumstance serves the perpetrator. Abortion tends to cover the crime instead of bringing light on that act and helping the mother stop being violated by the incestuous person.

Prewitt: Rape and incest are tragic situations. But in dealing with the crime itself, we shouldn't be morally tone-deaf and somehow think that aborting the product of that crime will bring them healing. The statistics do not lie and the chances of getting pregnant by rape are small. The number of abortions right now caused by rape is even smaller. So we cannot justify the continued abortion of 53 million babies just for that small percentage. We must remember that the child is not the child of the rapist. That is a child of God, made in God's image. He or she is an image bearer of God.

[However] if the life of the mother is truly stake, there is nothing in this amendment that prevents the doctor from saving her life, even if it cuts against the child. I will not say the doctor attends to the mother first. I believe this amendment will cause a doctor to look at both mother and child with a sense of equality. His goal should be to have a viable child and a safe mother. In the case of a tubal or ectopic pregnancy, that is not a viable pregnancy. So unless the mother chooses to have a child, which is not viable and will result in her death as well, the doctor may remove him or her [through abortion]."

Webb: By analogy, let's consider if you are in your house and someone breaks into your house with a gun. You have reason to think they will take your life. That person is an adult, but his personhood does not mean you have to let him kill you. He has rights, you have rights. If you are threatened with deadly force, you are allowed to use equal deadly force to protect yourself. This is called the principal of self-defense. Any mother is allowed to act in her best interest to protect her own life, even if that means costing the life of the developing pregnancy. That would be true for any ectopic pregnancy.

The doctor is also protected by the legal principal of Double Effect -- that is when you do one action, there are two consequences. You intend for a good end, but a bad one comes with it. If you go into a burning building to rescue an unconscious man and break his leg in the process of dragging him out, he can't sue you for breaking his leg. You went into the building with the intent of saving his life. Having done that, you can't be blamed for the unintended consequences of having broken his leg. The same would hold true for a doctor. The doctor doesn't go into the operating room to take out an ectopic pregnancy with the intent to harm the fetus. It is a consequence of the treatment. The intent is to save the mother's life.

Myth: Amendment 26 will deny access to life-saving treatment to pregnant women suffering from cancer

Shearin: Those who are making incredible statements like this are showing themselves to be wolves in sheep's clothing. I would challenge anyone who says this to present an actual case or example. If they could do that, I would ask if we need protective legislation. That could be done quite easily. The truth is that if a mother has a cancer that is likely to take her life, she deserves treatment. Sometimes, that treatment has the unintended consequence of harming or ending the life of another person within the womb. But it is the same basic concept as emergency surgery. It is the same moral consideration.

Likewise, if the baby is lost during the process of treating cancer, that is not a deliberate abortion, therefore Amendment 26 would not affect it. I know several women who went through their pregnancies taking cancer treatments. They are doing fine and so are their children.

Myth: Amendment 26 criminalizes women who have a miscarriage

Bush: Look at the definition of miscarriage and murder. Murder is an intentional taking of another person's life. Amendment 26 says you will respect the life of a person from the beginning to its natural end. In a miscarriage, there is a natural end. No one would criminalize a life with a natural beginning and end. That is an innocent life that had a beginning and ended in a natural way. Murder, on the other hand, such as abortion, is not a natural end to a life.

Vaughn: Amendment 26 is a law that declares a fact. It doesn't name any crimes. And remember, women have had miscarriages in Mississippi from the time the state began, even before 1973 when a baby was declared to not be a person. None of those women were tried for murder. So, in reality, it is going back to old, established law. That is a cruel assertion to make. Proponents of this lie are making a woman who has already miscarried and is bearing the grief and stress of that to face this red herring by saying she could now be criminalized. That is simply cruel. –One News Now

Locally Speaking

Faith Leaders Speak Out Against NC’s Amendment 1

A coalition of religious voices is speaking out against North Carolina’s Amendment 1 that goes to the ballot on May 8.

Despite North Carolina already having a statutory ban on same-sex marriage, the state’s religious conservatives have pushed for a ballot measure to write that ban into the state’s constitution, saying that religious freedom and the welfare of children is at stake. The ban would not only outlaw same-sex marriage, but all marriage-like partnerships including opposite sex domestic partnerships.

Below is a video by Protect All NC Families in which a group of religious leaders speak out on why they believe their faith demands that they oppose this amendment, citing how the overreaching ban could harm children by blocking access to health care funds and leaving non-married couples vulnerable, while same-sex couples could potentially lose spousal health care and partner visitation rights, among a host of other issues. –Care2

^^^*^^^

  

People of Faith Against Amendment One