Month Archives: April 2012

April 30, 1789: Was President Washington Too Cute by Half?

by Robert Morrison

April 30, 2012

Last week, Congressman Todd Akin (R-Mo.) offered a prayer to open a meeting of his House Armed Services Subcommittee. It was a personal prayer in which the Congressman asked for divine guidance and for a spirit of conciliation among Members during sometimes rancorous proceedings. He closed by saying he offered the prayer in the name of his Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Uh oh! That was enough to excite the rancor of the atheizers. These are those self-appointed defenders of the constitutional separation of church and state who race to the microphones and into court to protest any mention of God, or parish the thought, Jesus in a public context.

They will doubtless be wounded and think themselves unjustly treated to be called atheizers. But is that not the effect of what they advocate? Do they not complain of any public expression of Christian faith? They say they are all for religious liberty, and many of them vigorously claim to be Christians themselves.

They simply want to have freedom of expression and freedom of worship confined to the home and churches. Away from public view. Just like it was guaranteed in the old Soviet Constitution.

One of the atheizers leaders is Rev. Barry Lynn. He heads something called Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Americans, it seems, were mostly united before the atheizers began their agitation. Since then, there has been no end of Americans disunited.

Rev. Lynn is not letting Mr. Akin get away with referring to You Know Who as his personal Savior. Thats too cute by half, said Mr. Lynn.

Mr. Lynn is always provocative. He got me thinking. I wonder if President Washington was also too cute by half. Its true that President Washington did not mention the name of Jesus in his Inaugural Address on this day in New York City in 1789.

Perhaps George Washington figured that since he was taking the Oath of Office as prescribed in the newly adopted Constitution, it would be unnecessary. He did add to the words prescribed in the Constitution these four wordsSo Help Me God.

Washington was acutely aware that everything he did and said would form a precedent for future presidents. He was also acutely careful to respect the traditions and beliefs of his fellow citizens of the new republic.

After taking the oath, in the presence of a cloud of witnesses, and asking Gods help in fulfilling his constitutional duties as the first president, Washington kissed the Bible.

Did you notice that part, Barry Lynn? George Washington actually kissed the Bible. On federal property. And in the middle of an official federal proceeding, not unlike a congressional hearing.

And before the atheizers come back with their rejoinderbut Washington never mentioned Jesuslets see what President Washington did next. He proceeded inside to deliver his first Inaugural Address to Members of the new federal Congress, diplomats, and invited guests in the Senate chamber.

From there, President Washington led the assembly to St. Pauls Church in Lower Manhattan, where the Chaplain of the Senate led them in a worship service. The Rev. Dr. Prevost also served as Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church of New York.

Washington Irving, one of Americas best loved writers, then informs us so closed the inaugural ceremonies.

Imagine that, Mr. Lynn! On that day inManhattanwere assembled hundreds of those who had drafted, approved, and then ratified the new Constitution. No one, according to the historical account, jumped up to protest the oath, or the kissing of the Bible by the newly intalled president. No one seems to have run out of St.Pauls offended at hearing the name of Jesus.

Can Barry Lynn or any of the other atheizers show us where and when the Constitution that Washingtonvowed to preserve, protect, and defend has been amended to make references to God or Jesus Christ unconstitutional?

If the atheizers now believe we should banish all references to God and all mention of Jesus from public life, they have a right in this free republic to advocate for this change. They have a right to offer an amendment to the Constitution to bring about the naked public square they seem to crave. Maybe their friends in the Anti-Christian Litigation Unit will draft their amendment for them.

But until they amend George Washingtons Constitution, I believe Congressman Todd Akin was not too cute by half. I believe he was acute. Mr. Akin was as acute as George Washington was in acknowledging publicly his dependence on the Lord for guidance, and in expressing his gratitude for the blessings of liberty. Thank you, Congressman Akin.

The Hemming-in of Boy Scouting Continues

by Rob Schwarzwalder

April 27, 2012

Over the past few days, the secular media have reported extensively about a woman whose lesbianism compelled the Boy Scouts of America to ask her to resign as a Den Mother. She has been featured in numerous media interviews, her overwhelmed-looking little boy with her, and been heralded as a hero for standing up to the BSA.

Here are some facts:

  • Scouting does not allow homosexuals to be in leadership - period. After hundreds of lawsuits regarding the sexual abuse of boys - nearly all of them involving homosexual molestation - and after paying out many millions of dollars in settlements ($18.5 million in one case alone), the BSA wisely has chosen to have a zero-tolerance policy toward homosexuality. It has been reported that since 2007 alone, the Boy Scouts of America have been sued for sexual abuse claims by 35 individuals in 11 states. This prohibition on gays and lesbians in leadership positions is widely known and was known, specifically, by Jennifer Tyrrell when she chose to become a Den Mother.
  • Ms. Tyrrell seems intent on using her little boy as a means of attacking the BSA’s position on homosexuality. By all accounts, she was capable and caring as a leader of the Tiger Cubs. That is irrelevant: Despite her claim that a local Scoutmaster told her that her lesbianism was immaterial, the stated policy of the Boy Scouts of America is that homosexuality is incompatible with the tenets of Scouting. Every week, roughly 2.8 million Scouts take an oath to remain “morally straight.” According to the historic tenets of Scouting, homosexuality does not comport with that standard. Every adult in Scouting is to support and model the moral convictions expressed by the BSA. Ms. Tyrrell knew that, too.
  • In 2000, the Supreme Court declared that as a private organization - one joined voluntarily by every person involved with it - the BSA had the right to require belief in a Creator and traditional sexual morality of all participants. Ms. Tyrrell (drum roll, please) knew that before becoming a Den Mother, as well.

In West Virginia, the Summit Bechtel Family National Scout Reserve is composed of 10,600 acres of land adjacent to the New River Gorge National River. It is a boy’s paradise, and was provided through the generosity of several wealthy families and an energy company. Together, they have given in excess of $100 million to provide Scouts with a beautiful and perpetual site to hold their National Jamboree and many other activities.

Yet this remarkable gift would have been less necessary to the future of Scouting had the American Civil Liberties Union not filed a suit insisting that the BSA could not officially be sponsored by the Department of Defense, since according the ACLU the Scouts’ affirmation of a Creator constitutes a state endorsement of religion. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, under the agreement reached between the ACLU and the DOD, “Provided there is no sponsorship by Department of Defense personnel in an official capacity, Boy Scout units are permitted to meet on military bases and military personnel are permitted to remain active in Boy Scout programs.

While Scouts are grateful they can continue their historic access to military facilities, the fact that they affirm belief in God and eschew homosexuality places the continued use of military bases at risk. Why? Two reasons: (1) Homosexual and atheist groups continue to work to undermine Scoutings positions on God and human sexuality, and (2) the U.S. military now allows open homosexuality. Given these things, how long will it be before the Scouts are told to endorse homosexuality and drop their allegiance to a Creator or else never come to military bases again (much as many cities and corporations have also cut off support to the BSA for these reasons)?

These attacks on Scouting have made private donations, including massive ones that provide locations for major Scouting events, essential.

Cruz Tyrrell, the young boy thrust into the center of this controversy, and his fellow Tiger Cubs are the ones most adversely affected by Ms. Tyrrells behavior. Our hearts should go out to them. Yet it would be a disservice to millions of boys and their families to lift the prohibition on homosexuality in Scouting. Just look at the litigation history of the past 40 years: Of course not every gay man is a sexual predator, but the predators in Scouting have been, almost without exception, male.

Tonight one of my sons will be staying on a military installation with a host of other local Scouts. He will lead his Patrol in a series of activities and, barring something unforeseen, have a great time. In all likelihood, they will never consider the matters discussed in this piece. Nor should they have to: They are boys, surrounded by honorable men, roughing it with a spirit of fun and adventure.

May it be ever thus.

Millennials, Christianity, and Culture

by Rob Schwarzwalder

April 27, 2012

Young people are ambivalent. This is the essential finding of a new study by Georgetown Universitys Berkeley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs. The Center, led by FRCs friend Dr. Tom Farr, joined with Public Religion Research Institute to obtain an in-depth portrait of younger Millennials on faith, values, and the 2012 election.

The portrait that emerges in the survey, A Generation in Transition: Religion, Values, and Politics among College-Age Millennials (ages 18-24), is textured by hues of uncertainty. Among its most notable findings:

  • Younger Millennials report significant levels of movement from the religious affiliation of their childhood, mostly toward identifying as religiously unaffiliated. While only 11 percent of Millennials were religiously unaffiliated in childhood, one-quarter (25 percent) currently identify as unaffiliated, a 14-point increase. Catholics and white mainline Protestants saw the largest net losses due to Millennials movement away from their childhood religious affiliation.
  • Despite holding some moral reservations about abortion, a majority of college-age Millennials support legal abortion, as well as community access to abortion services. Fifty-four percent of those surveyed believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Yet a slim majority (51 percent) of Millennials believe that having an abortion is morally wrong, compared to (37 percent) who say it is morally acceptable.
  • Millennials feelings toward present-day Christianity are fairly ambivalent. Approximately three-quarters (76 percent) of younger Millennials say that modern-day Christianity has good values and principles, and 63 percent agree that contemporary Christianity `consistently shows love for other people. On the other hand, nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of Millennials say that anti-gay describes present-day Christianity somewhat or very well. And more than 6-in-10 (62 percent) Millennials also believe that present-day Christianity is judgmental.
  • Although younger Millennials are divided on the morality of gay and lesbian sexual relationships, a solid majority support allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally. Almost 60 percent of Millennials favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry.

The ideological division among Millennials should come as no surprise. Many of them were raised without fathers and in non-religious homes. They were educated in public schools that taught tolerance as the supreme and integrating virtue, although concurrently they were taught not to extend such to those who believe in revealed and unbending truth. In such classrooms, right and wrong exist only as cultural-linguistic artifacts of an unenlightened era.

Millennials have come of age in a society where promiscuity is exalted in every popular medium, in academia, in sports, etc. Walking into a large department store a couple of years ago, I noticed a photo atop a kiosk of sunglasses that appeared to show two women kissing. Disturbing to me, yet part of ordinary life forAmericas youth.

One of the more striking features of the survey is what it reports young Americans believe about Christianity. They seem to be favorably impressed by Christianity itself (as they understand it), but not by professing Christians, who they view as judgmental.

The extent to which we who profess the Name of Jesus have been harsh or crass is lamentable. May we repent of it. Yet making moral judgments is merely to affirm Christian teaching. According to Scripture and natural law, some things really are right, others really are wrong. Take sexual morality: the Bible makes it plain that all non-marital, non-heterosexual intimacy is against Gods plan for men and women.

To affirm this teaching is to assert that those who differ are in error. This is a moral judgment, to be sure, but it is grounded in neither arrogance nor hatred. Not to affirm scriptural teaching about human sexuality would be to accede to practices and beliefs that do not comport with the glory of God or the good of those He has made in His image. It would be unloving.

Additionally, it would seem that many Millennials have obtained their understanding of Christianity more from the criticisms of iconic cultural figures and antagonistic teachers than from practical experience with believing Christians. Kindness, generosity, integrity, self-sacrifice: These characterize the committed Christians I know far more than the narrowness, bitterness, or hypocrisy for which popular culture indicts them.

Stereotypes are easy to formulate, almost always inaccurate, and difficult to dissipate. Human nature gravitates to the simple and sensational. Thus, the canards that Christians dont care about unborn children after they are born, that we hate gays and lesbians, that we suppress women, etc. gain social credence.

It is for those of us who love the living Savior to dispel the inaccurate perceptions of our age concerning the path of life to which we graciously have been drawn. It is for us to do this without compromise and with compassion, to be filled with both grace and truth, qualities with which Jesus was filled (John1:14).

Surely, there can be few higher callings for any of us than this.

Rep. Roby Also Questions Secretary Sebelius on Religious Freedom

by David Christensen

April 26, 2012

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius received a number of questions on the contraception mandate this morning during the U.S. House of Representatives Education and Workforce Committee hearing “Reviewing the President’s Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Proposal for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.” In addition to Secretary Sebeliuss answers to Rep. Trey Gowdy (R,SC) which Jeanne blogged about earlier today, Rep. Martha Roby (R, AL) also questioned Secretary Sebelius about the contraception mandate.

Taking a slightly different tack from Gowdy, Rep. Roby asked Secretary Sebelius why religious organizations, such as the Roman Catholic television/radio station Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN) based in her Alabama district was not exempt from HHSs mandate. Secretary Sebelius blamed the Institutes of Medicine (IOM) for recommending contraception, abortifacients and sterilization, even though her department requested IOM to make recommendations, and she blamed the narrow exemption on states. She didnt say that most religious employers in states with narrow exemptions to their state contraception mandate can change their plans in ways to get around the mandate. Indeed, the federal mandate is more comprehensive and applies to plans even if they self-insure. The exchange between Sec. Sebelius and Rep. Roby can be viewed here.

Secretary Sebelius on Religious Freedom Protections

by Family Research Council

April 26, 2012

This morning in a hearing before the U.S. House of Representatives Education and Workforce Committee, HHS Secretary Sebelius was questioned by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) on the topic of religious liberty. Specifically, Rep. Gowdy questioned Secretary Sebelius’ statement in her testimony indicating the careful consideration she undertook to “balance” religious liberty protections with preventive services in making the decision about the contraceptive mandate (which includes drugs that can cause abortions).

Rep. Gowdy asked the Secretary about the specifics of her “balance”. In doing so he explained three tests for legal balance, depending on the content and issues being weighed. He explained that because religious liberty is a fundamental right any decision that might violate it would require the strictest scrutiny.

Under oath, the nation’s HHS head stated that in making this decision and taking into consideration religious liberty issues, she relied on the expertise of HHS General Counsel. When questioned further about the counsel she received, the Secretary reported that guidance was provided entirely in discussion, and no legal memo was written on the topic. When asked further about her knowledge of the most significant cases related to relgious liberty that have been decided by the Supreme Court, the Secretary responded that she was unaware/unfamiliar with these cases. It is a telling moment.

The full video is a must-see and just over five minutes:

The Social Conservative Review: April 26, 2012

by Krystle Gabele

April 26, 2012

Click here to subscribe to the Social Conservative Review.


Dear Friends,

The outpouring of grief over the passing of Chuck Colson has been moving. It was for his courageous and extensive ministries that FRC gave him its James C. Dobson Vision and Leadership Award in 2008.

Somewhat neglected in the tributes has been Mr. Colson’s deep commitment to defending the persecuted, providing aid to the needy, and bringing justice to the developing world.

University of Texas scholar Will Inboden notes that, “in the 1990s Colson helped lead a broad movement of American evangelicals into activism on an array of foreign-policy issues, including religious persecution, human trafficking, the HIV/AIDS pandemic, genocide in Sudan, and human rights atrocities in North Korea.”

Dr. Inboden continues that “it would not be an exaggeration to say that the State Department offices of International Religious Freedom, Trafficking in Persons, Global Aids Coordinator, Special Envoy for Sudan, and North Korea Human Rights would not exist today without Colson’s work in generating support for their creation.”

In themselves, these achievements would have been so formidable as to constitute a remarkable legacy. Taken with his many other initiatives, Chuck Colson’s ministry has been historic.

Mr. Colson said once, “I have the only pardon I need” - the pardon won through trusting in the death of Jesus Christ for his sins and the new life won through His resurrection.

To borrow from Hebrews 11:4, Chuck Colson, being dead, yet speaketh.

Sincerely,

Rob Schwarzwalder

Senior Vice President

Family Research Council

P.S. To watch FRC President Tony Perkins’ presentation of our Vision and Leadership award to Mr. Colson, and hear Chuck’s remarks, click here.


Educational Freedom and Reform

Homeschooling

Legislation and Policy Proposals

Government Reform

Regulation

Waste/Fraud/Abuse

Health Care

Abstinence

Conscience Protection

Health care reform: Political and Legislative efforts

Homosexuality

Human Life and Bioethics

Abortion

Bioethics and Biotechnology

Euthanasia and End of Life Issues

Stem Cell Research

To read about the latest advances in ethical adult stem cell research, keep up with leading-edge reports from FRC’s Dr. David Prentice, click here.

Human Trafficking

Women’s Health

Marriage and Family

Adoption

Family Economics

Family Structure

Media

Pornography

Internet

Religion and Public Policy

Religious Liberty

Religion in America

Check out Dr. Kenyn Cureton’s feature on Watchmen Pastors called “The Lost Episodes,” featuring how religion has had an impact on our Founding Fathers.

Secularism

International

Israel

International Economy and Family

Religious Persecution

Sharia law — U.S., foreign

The Courts

Constitutional Issues

Judicial Activism

Other News of Note

Book reviews

Hope and Human Trafficking

by Rob Schwarzwalder

April 25, 2012

American Christians, who understand the incomprehensible scandal and moral horror of sex trafficking must recognize that this is an issue of high moral priority.” So says Al Mohler in his latest op-ed, “The Ugly American - Sex Trafficking and Our National Humiliation.”

Aptly said: What Dr. Mohler rightly calls a scandal has become so widespread that, according to the Associated Press, Attorney General Eric Holder is “designating a coordinator to oversee the Justice Departments efforts to combat human trafficking, describing it as modern-day slavery that has reached ‘crisis’ proportions on a global scale.”

The millions of victims of human trafficking deserve the help and support of Christians, especially as this problem grows here at home. As Attorney General Holder noted: “As incomprehensible as it seems, trafficking in girls is an increasingly prevalent part of gang activity. These crimes are seen as ‘low risk and high reward.’ They bring in more profits and often result in less prison time than dealing drugs. As one journalist who was covering instances of human trafficking here in Arkansas explained it: ‘You can only sell a drug once, but you can sell a human being over, and over, and over.’ Today, these transactions can be executed quickly, conveniently, and anonymously over the Internet and many of them involve young children.”

Eric Holder is not the Attorney General many of us would like: His refusal to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, his commitment to defending the constitutionally indefensible Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly known as Obamacare), and his allegiance to an agenda that would erode religious liberty as our Constitution understands it make his tenure at Justice a dubious one. Yet on this issue, he’s getting it right - so much so, that in his speech he even praised pro-life, conservative Republican Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA), whose longtime championship of the most vulnerable (born and unborn) elicits the praise even of his philosophical opponents (read more about his recent work here).

Earlier this month, just across the Potomac from FRC, “Two associates of a Fairfax County-based Crips gang pleaded guilty … to charges of running a prostitution ring that recruited and trafficked local high school girls, authorities said … At least 10 underage girls from Virginia, Maryland and West Virginia were lured into prostitution and were forced to continue working through threats and violence, including rape, court records say.”

This gruesome phenomenon is occurring nationwide: From New York City to Odessa, Texas, this moral cancer is widespread throughout our country.

Thankfully, a number of wonderful ministries have stepped up to help those trapped in this modern-day slavery. FRC’s RealCompassion.org features links to the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability’s “Servant Match” site and to the Catholic Charities homepage. Visit these sites to learn about ministries that, both here at home and abroad, are rescuing women and girls from the grip of involuntary sexual servitude and helping them move forward with hope and dignity.

Amendment Rightly Protects the Institution of MarriageNot Just the Word

by Peter Sprigg

April 25, 2012

David Blankenhorn and Elizabeth Marquardt are distinguished scholars, whose books on fatherlessness, marriage, and divorce have made valuable contributions to debates over family policy. Yet their recent opinion piece in the Raleigh News & Observer opposing North Carolinas proposed marriage amendment (Amendment goes too far, April 11) is unrealistic about the current political, legal, and social landscape with respect to same-sex marriage.

If, as they say, marriage is a uniquely important institution that unites mothers and fathers to their children, then surely it is reasonable to acknowledge the importance of that institution not only with a unique name, but by conferring on it a unique set of benefits. Society gives benefits to marriage because marriage gives benefits to society. Since same-sex relationships can never give to society the two key social benefits of marriage between a man and a woman (natural procreation, and both a mother and father for the resulting children), there is no reason to give same-sex couples legal benefits on the basis of their sexual union.

This hardly leaves such couples and their children outside of the protection of our laws. Homosexual individuals who have their own biological or adopted children have the same rights as any other parent. Inheritance issues can be addressed through a will. Medical decision-making can be addressed through a health care proxy, and North Carolina recently passed a law addressing concerns about hospital visitation. The states proposed marriage amendment explicitly permits such private contractual arrangements.

Mr. Blankenhorn, who testified in defense of Californias marriage amendment, Proposition 8, says that he could do so in good conscience because California already recognized domestic partnerships. Yet he must be aware that the Ninth Circuit court panel which ruled against Prop 8 in February said they did so largely because the state already recognized domestic partnershipsrationalizing that denying same-sex couples only the word marriage while granting all of its benefits was evidence of a desire to dishonor a disfavored group. (The courts reasoning was tortured and irrationalbut must be taken into account by anyone who wishes to preserve the definition of marriage.)

Every state that has now redefined marriage began that process by first granting domestic partnerships or civil unions. Were not in Vermont 2000 any more, and it should be clear to all (including Blankenhorn and Marquardt) that civil unions no longer serve, in either courts or legislatures, as an alternative to redefining marriage. They are instead a forerunner paving the way for such redefinition.

Whether I agreed or disagreed with them, I have always considered Blankenhorn, Marquardt, and their Institute for American Values to be a model of civil discourse on these issues. That is why I was particularly disappointed at the pejorative tone employed in their piece. Was Mr. Blankenhorn ignoring and ostracizing single mothers when he wrote his book on the importance of fathers? Was Ms. Marquardt exhibiting cold indifference to people with failed marriages when she wrote her book on how children of divorced parents suffer? Are both of them guilty of disdain, overt antagonism, and bigotry against gay and lesbian persons because they themselves believe marriage should remain … the union of a man and a woman? There are many advocates of same-sex marriage who would say so. It seems odd for Blankenhorn and Marquardt to borrow such rhetoric from the very advocates for redefining marriage who have regularly employed it against them.

There is nothing unprecedented about the stricter language employed in theNorth Carolinaamendment. Nineteen of the twenty-nine states which have already amended their constitutions to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman have likewise protected the uniqueness of the institution of marriage, and not just the single word.

North Carolina is the only state in the South that has not adopted a marriage amendment, and all but two Southern states have the stronger form of amendment which will be on the ballot May 8.

North Carolinas marriage amendment goes exactly as far as necessary to protect the institution of marriage.

Losing the Vision of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

by Tony Perkins

April 24, 2012

Are the claims that the Christian faith is being shoved from the public square real or perceived? Carl Anderson, The Grand Knight of the Knights of Columbus, who came to Washington last week to speak before the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast, provided a pretty compelling answer.

Mr. Anderson, who once worked here, in the Reagan White House, delivered an insightful speech noting the incredible story of the new Memorial to the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

The planners of the newest addition to our National Mall, Anderson reported, worked hard to find quotations from the great Civil Rights champion. These planners etched these quotations in stone. They carefully chose words of this Baptist preacher. They wanted to honor the memory of the man who went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize for his nonviolent overthrow of racial segregation in America.

Here are some of the words Dr. King spoke in his lifetime. These quotes come from his Nobel Lecture accepting the Peace Prize in 1964:

Deeply etched in the fiber of our religious tradition is the conviction that men are made in the image of God and that they are souls of infinite metaphysical value, the heirs of a legacy of dignity and worth.

In a dark confused world the kingdom of God may yet reign in the hearts of men.

And, at the award ceremony, Dr. King quoted directly from Scripture, making these words his own:

[In] the First Epistle of Saint John:

Let us love one another: for love is of God; and everyonethat loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and Hislove is perfected in us.

The planners of the King Memorial, Carl Anderson noted, included none of these quotes.

Nor did they include Dr. Kings invocation of the words of Scripture from his 1963 I Have a Dream Speech:

and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

It seems that the planners were very careful to leave out of the tablets any reference to God. This took some doing. Dr. King was first and foremost a Christian minister. Early in his ministry, as the leader of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Martin Luther King, Jr. pointed out:

I want it to be known throughout Montgomery and throughout this nation that we area Christian people…And we are determined here in Montgomery [Alabama] to work and fight, until justice runs down like water and righteousness as a mighty stream.

Even here, early in his career, Dr. King was quoting from the Prophet Amos.

It must have been hard work for those planners. They had to search high and low to find quotes from Dr. King that did not include God, that did not quote from the Bible. But find them they did.

Carl Anderson is surely right to point all this out. The Knights of Columbus successfully petitioned Congress as long ago as 1954 to include Under God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Anderson pointed out to the aggressive atheizers of our day that you can walk across the Mall to the Jefferson Memorial and there find engraved these words:

The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time.

Life and Liberty are indeed the gift of God. And these are never secure in America when we have sandblasted all references to His handiwork.

The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was never ashamed to associate his liberating work with the unfolding of GodsProvidencefor us. He believed until his dying day that he had been to the Mountain. From the beginning, he put his movement for justice under God, never apart from God. It is tragic that the planners of his Memorial found it necessary to misrepresent his lifes work and in so doing try to deceive millions of Americans who will come after us.

All such atheizing efforts will ultimately fail. You can go to the Library of Congress and learn why. There, engraved in words of gold, it says: The heavens declare the Glory of God. The firmament sheweth His handiwork. And as the Apostle Paul makes clear this evidence of the invisible attributes of God leave all of us without excuse.

How Internet Porn Turned My Beautiful Boy into a Hollow, Self-Hating Shell

by Cathy Ruse

April 24, 2012

Yesterday in the UK, leading internet firms were accused of complicity in exposing children to hardcore pornography, following an independent inquiry by Members of Parliament that warned of a generation of teenagers addicted to porn.

Read this chilling account in the Daily Mail by a mother whose 11-year-old son changed beyond recognition when he began secretly watching porn at night on his laptop in bed.

The porn she discovered in her sons search history, freely given to him without a credit card, is absolutely prosecutable as obscenity under long-standing U.S. federal law.

Are 11-year old American boys accessing it, too? Does the Obama Justice Department care? Will the next U.S. president enforce the law or ignore it?

For more information on how pornography affects society, read “The Effects of Pornography on Individuals, Marriage, Family and Community,” by Patrick F. Fagan, Ph.D.

March 2012 «

» May 2012

Archives