There's more than meets the eye with evolution

The controversy over evolution, in society as a whole and schools in particular, is viewed by many as an obscure dispute generated in large part by religious fundamentalists who want creationism taught instead.

A closer examination of the issue reveals there's much more to it. And the implications of the theory of evolution are far greater than most people realize.

As former Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson has pointed over the past 20 years or so, evolution, which is defined as the belief that the physical world is the result of purposeless, mindless, chance process, means there is no God; thus man and creation are not the result of design and a Creator. This definition, which is held by evolution's proponents in the scientific community, has co-opted or hijacked the entire scientific enterprise. It presumptively means only materialist/naturalism explanations are acceptable to all questions. The result? Man and all of creation are, by definition, the product of a mindless, purposeless, chance process. Theistic evolution advocated by some is merely an oxymoron. Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection gave scientific legitimacy to scientific materialism/naturism, e.g. matter is all that exists; there is no God.

Dr. John West of the Discovery Institute has now come out with a book, "Darwin Day in America: how our politics and culture has been dehumanized in the name of science" in which he shows how the scientific materialism worldview promulgated under the guise of science and evolution has impacted nearly every area of our politics and culture. From science, sex education, and crime/punishment to ethics, poverty, business and life & death issues. It's truly an example of an idea having consequences far beyond the idea itself.

Fortunately, the theory of evolution, rooted in scientific materialism, is being discredited by the Intelligent Design movement which simply seeks to demonstrate that the theory of evolution doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny. The evidence doesn't support the theory. This is good news though the devastating consequences are and will continue to be felt for many years. This is why the battle over evolution in our schools and elsewhere is far more significant than most people realize.

Incredible Closing Play to College Football Game; Divine Intervention on Behalf of Trinity University?

A number of years ago, a Stanford-California college football game ended with Stanford, I recollect, doing multiple laterals to score a most unlikely touchdown, including running over some band members who had prematurely come onto the field.

This past weekend, a college football game in Texas involving Trinity University, a Division III school, ended with an even more unlikely set of laterals. View it here and be amazed.

Is there really an "evangelical crack" up in the works?

"The evangelical crackup" is the title of a lengthy story in the New York Times Magazine. The title is a bit more provocative than the actual article which does note some interesting happenings in the evangelical political universe.

I don't see an evangelical crackup because there's not a monolithic evangelical entity out there, in politics or elsewhere. Evangelicalism is more of a movement than an institution and that's true regarding political/public square engagement as much as evangelism.

I think there are some interesting developments in evangelical circles. The most promising one is the broader cultural engagement by evangelicals. An exclusive focus on politics by evangelicals is a mistake in my estimation and would mirror the error of the Left which views politics as the answer to society's problems. I applaud broader, personal social engagement because that's what Christians should be doing. Government by it's nature is ill-equipped to address the pressing social problems of the day. (This is borne out by the fact that the percent of people living in poverty hasn't improved since Johnson's "War on Poverty" began in the early 1960s. I think one could make the case that it has in some respects made matters worse, e.g. usurped the role of private charities and persons and created programs which encouraged people to develop bad patterns of behavior such as out of wedlock births, and the like.) That's why it's absolutely critical that evangelicals are personally involved in addressing poverty, AIDS, and other social problems.

I think the media tries to find the spokesman for evangelicals e.g. Dobson, Falwell, Robertson and it just doesn't work because of its diffused nature. I think the influence the media places on power or influence of particular evangelical leaders is generally overstated. Those viewed as leaders may voice the concerns of large numbers of evangelicals but they don't dictate what people will do.

I don't see evangelicalism as diminishing in influence with the passing of some of the prominent evangelical leaders like Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy. I think evangelicals have moved from a protest movement, e.g. Falwell and the Moral Majority in the 70s and 80s to a movement where individuals are personally engaged in the process by running for office, serving on staffs, being law clerks and judges. I think this is true not just for the public square but other areas as well.

I do think the war has changed the political calculus across the board, at least for a few years. (Though that could change if the situation changes for the better in Iraq.) It's drawn out the pacifist thinking of some and disillusioned others but I don't think it's changes the fundamentals of political involvement. I saw a poll recently which showed younger evangelicals are less likely to identify as Republicans but not less likely to identify themselves as conservative and are more pro-life than older evangelicals.

The media which deals in sound bites vainly tries to fit evangelicals into a neat little box. It generally doesn't work, because they're dealing with a movement not a monolithic institution.

Is the strict separationist wall between church and state coming down?

One of the more insidious political doctrines in our public life is the distorted notion of the strict wall of separation between church and state. Some belief this artificial wall is coming down.

I would argue this is a very good thing for all concerned even though radical secularists and strict separationists at places like the American Civil Liberties Union would strongly disagree.

An interesting book as come out on this topic, written by a law professor at the University of Duquesne, Bruce Ledewitz. It's called, "American Religious Democracy: Coming to Terms with the End of Secular Politics". In an interview with World magazine he says the strict wall of separation of church and state is coming down and that's not something to worry about. He points to recent Supreme Court decisions and the make up of the Court, recent public policy positions motivated by religious concerns, e.g. gay marriage, embryonic stem cell, faith-based initiatives, and the fact that more people are voting for religious reasons than in the past.

He had some interesting things to say on theocracy versus a democracy. He said if the people enacted the book of Leviticus that wouldn't be a theocracy but a democracy. A theocracy is where a group of religious leaders can veto or enact public policy. That isn't the case where religious folks lobby and enact laws consistent with their religious convictions.

What interesting about Ledewitz is he's not a Christian conservative. He's Jewish and was the western Pennsylvania campaign coordinator for the presidential campaigns of Gary Hart and Al Gore.

Upset with your union's support of pro-abortion, liberal candidates? Then read on.

I recently received a call from a woman who was very upset about her public employee union's support of very liberal candidates and causes. Why should she be forced to support the union when they support pro-abortion candidates in violation of her religious convictions, she asked. What's her recourse? Seek a religious exemption from her union dues going to the union. She has a right to have all of her union dues sent to a nonprofit organization. Not just a portion. There's been big legal battles over this right but the courts have consistently upheld the right of employees to redirect their union dues to nonprofits when they object for religious reasons to the causes supported by the union.

Here's an article on one court case and for more background information on the subject you can go to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation web page. I'm told they'll even defend you for free. If enough union members, private or public, opted out for the religious exemption to redirect their union dues to a nonprofit, I think it would have an impact.

Overwhelming liberal bias in the university and liberal faculty members

A new study of the ideology of university faculty reaffirms why there is an overwhelming liberal bias in academia. The study was done by two professors at Harvard and George Mason University of 1417 full-time professors.

What did they find?

*Only 9.2 percent of college instructors are conservatives.
*The lowest number of conservative faculty members is at liberal arts colleges only 3.9%, highest at community colleges 19.0% (Those bastions of conservatism.)
*Only 20.4% of college instructors voted for George W. Bush in 2004.
*75% of college faculty members agree that “abortion should be legal if a
woman wants it for any reason.”
*Faculty members are most left on gender, sexuality, and foreign policy issues.
*Conservatives are rarest in the humanities (3.6 percent) and social sciences (4.9 percent), and most common in the health sciences (20.5 percent) and business (24.5 percent).

Mr. Larry Summers, who was formerly President of Harvard and is now a university professor at Harvard said, "It made me think that there is even less ideological diversity in the American university than I had imagined. There is an overwhelming tilt toward the progressive side. Compared to the under representation of other groups whose under representation is often stressed, the under representation of conservatives appears to be rather substantially more, perhaps.”

Probably the most intolerant institutions for the free exchange of ideas and the place which should be the most tolerant is the modern secular university.

Left bias from Star Tribune on abstinence until marraige sex education

Over the weekend the Star Tribune ran a story on the Department of Health's decision to not seek federal abstinence funding monies for a state program supported by Planned Parenthood. (That fact alone should raise red flags as to it's bona fides as a true abstinence until marriage program.)

The article by Josephine Marcotty served as an attack piece on abstinence until marriage curricula and message and again shows the liberal media bias against the common sense message, "Wait until you're marriage to have sex."

First, Marcotty uses the language of the left when she describes the abstinence until marriage approach as "abstinence-only" sex education. There's much more to true abstinence education than only abstaining. It's waiting to share the most intimate aspects of oneself with one person, not multi-partners or at one night stands.

Marcotty writes, "At issue is the question of whether adolescents and teenagers should be taught the view embraced by social conservatives -- that abstinence is the only sure way to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases." What's controversial about that? It's true on its face. Abstinence is the only sure way to avoid pregnancy and STDs.

She goes on to say "Several recent studies have raised the decibel level in the national debate because they found that abstinence-only programs are ineffective in reducing sexual activity among teenagers and adolescents." She doesn't say which studies those are or the controversial nature of those evaluations. There is plenty of evidence showing the abstinence message works.

Next she says, "In fact, critics of abstinence only education say it's prevalence might be one reason why the long decline in sexual activity among teenagers has stalled since 2001 and why American teens continue to have the highest rates of pregnancy and abortion in the industrialized."

Here she simply regurgitates the charges of contraceptive proponents without any response to the accuracy of these accusations. I would argue the exact opposite is true. The reigning orthodoxy in the sex education industry is condoms, condoms and more condoms. Since the onslaught of the sex revolution in the 60s we've seen an explosion of STDs from a few to a couple of dozen. I suppose she and "critics of abstinence only education" would say that abstinence caused that. In schools kids are inundated with condom messages; the main approach isn't abstinence until marriage but again condoms, condoms and more condoms.

Next she quotes from Michael Resnick, a UM professor who is a big proponent of condom education. He's hopeful we're moving away from the abstinence until marriage approach. "Are we seeing a turnaround in these positive trends because we are seeing the impact of ineffective educational strategies on kids?"

What's interesting about Dr. Resnick is a study he helped write was used as the basis for a monograph on sex education produced by the University of Minnesota in the late 1990s entitled, "Reducing the Risk: Connections That Make a Difference in the Lives of Youth." (The report Resnick helped write "Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health" published in 1997 in JAMA, Journal of the American Medical Association." A longitudinal study on Adolescent Health published in JAMA in 1997.)

The monograph found that family characteristics that protect teens from early sexual intercourse and pregnancy were "perceived parent disapproval of adolescent sex" and "perceived parent disapproval of adolescent contraception." In other words, Resnick is now promoting activities which directly undermines factors which discourage early sexual intercourse and pregnancy among adolescents.

My comments on the subject, buried in the middle of the article, constituted three paragraphs of the 27 paragraph article.

Marcotty follows my comments by quoting from Bill Smith a vice president for SIECUS, the principal national promoter of comprehensive sex education standards which promote not only contraceptives, but also acceptance of homosexuality and oral and anal sodomy. He was aghast at my suggestion that STDs and emotional damage can happen to folks in their 20s not just teenagers.

Then she concludes with quotes from Brigid Riley, the head of MOAPPP the primary promoter of comprehensive sex ed in the state, and Resnick who said parents want to hear abstinence but also contraceptives.

Interestingly enough, a Zogby poll was done on parents views of the content of comprehensive sex education programs. If found that when parents discovered what's actually in comp sex ed curricula, e.g. promotion of condom use among other things, support drops dramatically.

Comprehensive sex ed advocates engage in a bait and switch approach. They say, "Oh we'll teach abstinence but we'll also information on contraceptives as well." A review of what their comprehensive sex ed curricula by the Heritage Foundation found the comp sex ed curricula actually spent less than 5% of their time on abstinence and zero on marriage. They spent over 600% more time on condom use than abstinence.

The bottom line in this battle over sex ed, abstinence and condoms is a worldview battle. On the one side are those who view sex as a recreational sport and have a pretty much anything goes attitude towards sex -- let's just try and mitigate the consequences through condoms and abortion. On the other side are those who maintain a moral vision of sexual expression within the context of a marriage relationship. History, common sense and morality point to the second approach as best for the individual and society.

Giuliani didn't mention marriage in Values Voter Summit speech

I read Giuliani's speech at the Values Voter Summit and found it as interesting for what it didn't include as for what it did. He talked quite a bit about abortion. He said he'd promote adoption and veto any efforts to eliminate existing restrictions on abortion or the impact of the Hyde Amendment prohibiting the use of federal funds to pay for abortion, opposition to partial birth abortion and support for parental notification laws.

He didn't devote one word to marriage and homosexuality related issues. While in the past he said he supported traditional marriage and opposed civil unions, there are still questions about his support for domestic partnerships. Also, his stance on gays in the military, ENDA, hate crimes, abstinence until marriage funding are concerns.

Both the life and marriage issues are non-negotiables for social conservatives and Giuliani hasn't assuaged the concerns of social conservatives on a number of social issues.

Romney victorious in straw poll of 'value voters'

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has narrowly won the Values Voter Summit straw poll in Washington, DC.
From One News Now
By Jim Brown
October 20, 2007
http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/10/romney_victorious_in_straw_pol.php

Romney, who garnered 1,595 votes, edged out former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who tallied 1,565.

Texas congressman Ron Paul came in a surprise third with 865 votes, while former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson was fourth with 564 votes. A total of 5,776 votes were cast at the event sponsored by the Family Research Council.The top 4 issues that "value voters" said they cared about the most were life (abortion), marriage, tax cuts, and permanent tax relief for families. Today's straw poll was the second largest straw poll conducted in this election cycle.

-------------------------------------------------

Summit straw poll: Huckabee a landslide with onsite audience; Romney wins overall via online voters
Posted on Oct 21, 2007 by Erica Simons

WASHINGTON (BP)--Results of the Values Voter Summit straw poll still are being assessed about what it means regarding social conservatives’ support for Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.

Hucakbee topped Romney by 488 to 99 among those in the onsite audience, but Romney won the overall vote by 30 votes, 1595 to 1565, with the help of strong online support.

The vote was a part of a briefing sponsored by the Family Research Counsel (FRC), Focus on the Family, and other social conservative activist groups. Held this weekend in Washington D.C., the gathering gave republican presidential candidates an opportunity to vie for the support of America’s “values voters”.

Romney presented a strong pro-life message and family-focused platform, brushing aside skepticism by some evangelical Christians about his Mormon faith and his relatively recent pro-life conversion.

“I am pleased that so many people of faith have come to support my candidacy and my message,” Romney told the crowd Friday evening.

Huckabee, a former Baptist pastor and long-time pro-life advocate, felt at home among the conservatives. “I am a person of faith, and I came from the very roots of the faith movement,” he told press at a conference shortly after addressing the summit.

Among the crowd in the ballroom, Fred Thompson finished third with 77 votes and Guiliani took fifth, garnering 60 votes -- Tom Tancredo edged him out for fourth with 65 votes.Rounding out the overall vote, Ron Paul placed third (865), Fred Thompson fourth (564) and “Undecided” was the fifth most frequent response. Rudy Giuliani, despite an attempt to isolate his pro-choice stance and support for same-sex marriage, managed just ninth place with 107 votes, less than two percent of the vote.

Erica Simons is an intern with the Washington bureau of Baptist Press.

Pennsylvania Extends Same-Sex Benefits to Education Employees

from Citizenlink

The Pennsylvania Board of Governors last Thursday voted in favor of extending health-care benefits to same-sex partners of faculty members in the state's higher education system. Gov. Ed Rendell also voted in favor of the scheme.

Diane Gramley, the head of the American Family Association of Pennsylvania, told OneNewsNow that offering the same benefits that are given to spouses is a step toward redefining marriage.

Taxpayers and students will foot the bill. The plan may increase tuition.

Buying women's eggs and selling babies

An issue which was raised in the Minnesota legislature a few years ago and is likely to come back again is efforts to encourage surrogacy and gestational activities through establishing legally enforceable contracts. Surrogacy and gestational agreements involve women who contract with other individuals to carry to term a baby for those individuals. The baby may or may not be derived from the intended parents.

The practice raises all sorts of moral and ethical issues. Who's really the mother? Doesn't it constitute baby selling for a birth mother to turn over the baby she carries to term for compensation? What will this do to adoption, if babies can now be exchanged for compensation? (Currently, compensation for the baby is prohibited in adoptions.) Will there now be a push to allow compensation for adoptions? Will people avoid adopting kids if they can pay a woman to carry just the baby they want, e.g. designer babies? Doesn't this practice further breakdown the genetic, biological and social link between parents and their children?

A related issue is the selling of embryos by women. Allowing compensation for a woman's eggs raises the specter of exploitation for compensation.

A law in Massachusetts which gives women information on what's involved and prohibits compensation for the eggs has resulted in fewer eggs being transferred to third parties.

Interestingly, European countries have very restrictive laws regarding surrogacy and gestational practices. This is one instance where the Europeans get it right.

St. Thomas, Tutu and a number of other controversial positions

I was out of town last week when the President of the University of St. Thomas reversed his earlier decision not to invite South African Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu to speak at the University because of comments Tutu had made about Israel. The resulting controversy has caused the University's president to reverse his decision.

While the initial concern was based on Tutu's views on Israel, I thought it was interesting there was no discussion of Tutu's views on a number of moral issues Tutu is at odds with the Catholic Church on. For instance, his positions on birth control, abortion and homosexual clergy to name a few. The Archbishop is very liberal on a number of issues of concern to the Catholic Church.

Schwarzenegger protects marriage while exposing children to unhealthy sex education curriculum

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has been busy of late, vetoing a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage while signing another that would force schools to promote unhealthy sexual activities and lifestyles.

The debate has shifted from same-sex marriage and judicial activism to "rights." The goal of homosexual activists is not tolerance or acceptance but the total censorship of any and all opposition to their unhealthy agenda.

Thankfully, thousands of Minnesotans rallied during the 2007 legislative session in support of Gov. Tim Pawlenty's veto of a similar comprehensive sex education bill that would have mandated the indoctrination of similar unhealthy sexual activities.

Rest assured, supporters of comprehensive sex education will be back with a vengeance in 2008. The Minnesota Family Council, and thousands of concerned and mobilized parents will be ready.

A Pastor's response to Pioneer Press article: "Mankato family featured in documentary about gay rights"

By Pastor Dave Glesne

The article about the Reitan family (Pioneer Press, "Mankato / Family featured in documentary about gay rights")would have the public believe that, at its root, the homosexual issue is a matter of gay rights - an issue of justice and tolerance. Citing the personal experiences of this family, it speaks of the injustices and cruelty toward same-sex persons in both the church and society. Without a doubt the anger, rejection, pain and hurt are very deep and real.

As a Christian pastor, I acknowledge that same-sex persons have been wounded deeply by the Church’s lack of love. In the past, society has often rejected these homosexual persons and when they have come to our churches they have felt the same rejection. On behalf of the Church, I would ask Jake Reitan and all other same-sex persons who have been wounded, for forgiveness as we repent of our lack of love. It grieves me that these persons have not experienced the love and compassion of Jesus Christ in and through the Church.

I believe this is the place for the Church to start – with repentance. Unhappily, however, the matter does not end there. The assumptive language of gay rights, love, acceptance, and tolerance is loaded with assumptions that cannot go unchallenged. The article would above all have us believe that there is no reasonable distinction between homosexual orientation and homosexual behavior, that they are part of the same inherited identity.

The Christian faith, however, is rooted in the distinction between who we are and what we do. Jesus died on the cross to save who we are. Our sinful behavior – what we do separates us from God and is that for which Jesus had to die. In those who are following Jesus, God is at work reorienting our “orientation” toward self-centeredness toward eradicating our bad behavior and bad attitudes. He does this work in us precisely because He loves us and knows that our sinful behavior brings destruction to our being.

So God is not conflicted with loving the sinner and hating the sin. He loves who we are, after all He created us and sustains our being, our identity. But He hates the behavior which destroys the very being He created.

God understands, then, that we have only four options in this loving and hating business. 1.) We can love both the sinner and the sin; 2.) We can hate both the sinner and the sin; 3.) We can love the sinner and hate the sin; and 4.) We can hate the sinner and love the sin. These are the only choices. So if the Reitans refuse option three, which of the other would they have us choose?

The third option means that we can demonstrate love and acceptance toward ourselves and others – sinners though we are. It means we can follow the example of Jesus with the woman of Samaria. (John 4:4-26) The woman had been married five times. Jesus never approved of her multiple-marriages, but he didn’t allow them to disqualify her from receiving Living Water from him. He accepted her. He accepted her without approving of her behavior. As a result, her life was transformed.

The Reitans, it would appear, get out of this dilemma by assuming that same-sex behavior is not a sin, so we can love the behavior as well as the person who does it. But if same-sex behavior is indeed a sin, they do not get out of their dilemma.

By definition sin is some transgression of the will of God. He has given us that will in His two highest laws, the commandments to love God and one another. By drawing a line, these commandments define sin. Sin is failure to love God and one another. And the love spoken of here is a specific kind of love – agape love – which does those things that are life-promoting, what is good for the other, even when the other may not want it, and at any cost to himself. This is the Way of the Cross.

Every text in Scripture treats the issue of homosexual practice as contrary to the will of God. There are no exceptions. This biblical position is the historic position the Christian Church has held for centuries. In order for us to change, those who would revise Scripture would need to build a biblical and theological case for God approving of same-sex behavior. No such case has been made.

Love for the same-sex neighbor, then, does not allow us to say “yes” to behavior to which God has said “no”. Agape love, which seeks the good of the neighbor, accepts the person as Jesus accepted the Samaritan woman, but it does not approve of that behavior which is destructive of the neighbor.

Pastor Dave Glesne is pastor of Redeemer Lutheran Church in Fridley, and author of "Understanding Homosexuality: Perspectives for the Local Church" published by Kirk House Publishers.

What's wrong with this picture?

Caution: parental guidance advised

Recently, law enforcement arrested Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) for solicitation of gay sex in a Minneapolis public bathroom - but such laws were suspended in San Francisco to allow for public displays of oral sex and nudity at Folsom Street Fair. (See promotional poster on left.)

Media (including local media) provided extensive coverage of one person (Craig, a conservative) soliciting sex in Minneapolis, while ignoring hundreds of thousands attending the event in San Francisco which flaunted public sex, nudity, fondling and oral sex - all with children present.

And our legislators voted for a Federal Hate Crimes law to give states more power to prosecute hate crimes - but say we don't need a Federal Marriage Amendment to help states protect marriage.

What's wrong with this picture?

Will it become a hate crime to speak out against events like the Folsom Street Fair? Will your pastor be prosecuted for citing Scripture that condemns these acts - or the blasphemous, sadistic poster above. Will your children be indoctrinated to affirm and perform these unhealthy sex acts in public schools?

You already know the answer. Right now, in your heart of hearts you know the truth but are likely afraid to speak for fear of being called hateful and intolerant - while Minnesota public schools indoctrinate your children to accept same-sex marriage and teach "safe" homosexual sex. (e.g., Birds & Bees Project)

Perhaps your discomfort and silence today is enabling generations of children to become comfortable with sin, unhealthy sex and the destruction of marriage tomorrow.

Is that what you really want?

What do San Francisco and Sodom and Gomorrah have in common?

If you only read and listen to the mainstream media you probably didn't hear about Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco but it's worthy of comment. The Fair is, as the group Americans for Truth describes it, an "annual street party for BDSM enthusiasts (meaning bondage, discipline, sadism, masochism — or domination/submission)."

There were public acts of oral sodomy, full nudity, bondage and masochism. Children were exposed to the event and the police did nothing to enforce any public decency laws, if there are any in San Francisco. Decadence was the order of the day.

In addition, an advertisement for the event included a blasphemous depiction of the Last Supper. This event didn't get attention from the mainstream media but is worthy of attention because of the outrageous activities at the Fair. But also because the lack of attention given the activities at the event provide a good commentary on the moral condition of our society.

The fact that the media did nothing to bring attention to the outrageous event; the failure of San Francisco authorities to address the situation; and the refusal of Congresswoman Pelosi, in whose district the event occurred, to condemn the blasphemous treatment of the Lord's Supper suggests our culture is farther down the road to moral disintegration than we realize.

Frankly, the door opener for this sort of activity is public acceptance of homosexual behavior and related activities. Once this line is crossed there's no rational place to redraw the line. That's why we see the homosexual endorsement of bisexuality and transgenderism which includes transvestitism, cross dressing and so forth.

If we continue down this road we will see a Folsom Street Fairs coming to the Twin Cities. We already have a foreshadowing of it with the annual gay pride parade in Minneapolis.

New York Times Poll: Evangelicals Agree with Dr. Dobson

from Citizenlink

by Jennifer Mesko, associate editor

Majority only will support a presidential candidate who shares their values.

A New York Times/CBS News poll shows white, evangelical Republicans agree with Dr. James Dobson.
Nearly 60 percent of those who plan to vote in the primaries said they could not support a candidate they didn't agree with on issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. Eighty-six percent said presidential candidates should be judged on both their political record and their personal life.

Dr. Dobson has taken a beating in the media for promising to vote only for a candidate who shares his basic values, even if that means supporting a third-party candidate.

Last week, he wrote an op-ed piece for The New York Times to clarify his position: "Speaking personally, and not for the organization I represent, I firmly believe that the selection of a president should begin with a recommitment to traditional moral values and beliefs. Those include the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and other inviolable pro-family principles. Only after that determination is made can the acceptability of a nominee be assessed."

Rick Scarborough, president of Vision America, a Texas-based group that has a network of 5,000 pastors willing to mobilize their churches to vote, said evangelicals are not bluffing.

“I am not going to cast a sacred vote granted to me by the blood of millions of God-fearing Americans who died on the fields of battle for freedom, for a candidate who says it’s OK to kill the unborn,” he told The Times. “I just can’t.”

FOR MORE INFORMATION Read Dr. Dobson's op-ed that ran in The New York Times last week.

They want Minnesota to Look like Massachusetts

The Hill, a DC political news magazine, recently ran had an interesting article entitled, "Democrats want to make Minnesota the Massachusetts of the Midwest." The focus of the story is on efforts by Democrats to take the existing three Congressional seats held by Republicans, e.g. Kline, Bachmann and Ramstad. Steve Sarvi, Iraq war veteran and DFL opponent of John Kline, is quoted as saying, "We're talking about the whole state turning blue."

While he's talking about winning congressional seats, the question must be asked: what are the implications of Minnesota becoming like Massachusetts? A few come to mind. Legalized homosexual marriage. Locking in state funding of abortion on demand. State funded embryonic stem cell research. Homosexual promotion in the schools at taxpayers' expense. Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank type representation in Congress. In other words, cultural radicalism run amok.

What do the Teacher's and other Unions, Homosexual Groups, Abortion Supporters, and Radical Environmentalists Have in Common?

There's an interesting coalition of groups which has come together in Minnesota under the umbrella of "America Votes". Their goals as stated on their web page are to "come together to increase voter registration, education and participation in electoral politics." Sounds like a good government group. A closer examination of the participants suggests something much different. It's basically the cultural and political Left locking arms to advance their "broad range of issues including the environment, civil and human rights, choice, education and labor." Or to translate -- radical environmentalism, same sex marriage, abortion on demand, maintaining government union control of education. It strikes me as a rather unholy alliance of causes.

Some of the participants in Minnesota include ACORN; AFSCME; EMILY's List; OutFront Minnesota; NARAL Pro-Choice, MN; Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota Action Fund; Minnesota AFL-CIO, Education Minnesota; Sierra Club; and Wellstone Action!.

What did they do in the last election? Well, "more than 5,000 enthusiastic volunteers...reached hundreds of thousands of voters in the Twin Cities, Duluth, Anoka, and Rochester by knocking on more than 250,000 doors and made 653,000 phone calls.

A couple of things strike me about this coalition. First, the cultural Left is coming together in common cause to advance their agendas. Who says there's not a link between advocates of abortion and homosexuality?

Second, it's sad to see the unions sell their soul to the cultural Left. I wonder what their rank and file membership thinks about some of the goals of their union's fellow "Minnesota Coalition" partners? I suspect a large percent would disagree with the goals of the cultural Left and have no idea what their union dues are being used to support.

The achievement of their goals will only be a less just and humane society.

Visit to Washington DC energizes pastors to pray, promote civic activism, voter registration and get-out-the-vote

Last week MFI hosted 32 pastors from across Minnesota at David Barton’s Congressional Pastors Briefing and Capitol Heritage Tour in Washington DC.

Before the tour pastors met with staff of Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Sen. Norm Coleman. Klobachar was a last minute no-show. (Pictured on the left is Pastor Bob Battle, Berean Church of God in Christ speaking to Klobuchar staffers. “If you are going to call it a hate crime for me to preach the word of God regarding sin, then you might as well slap the cuffs on me right now. I will not stop!”)

Later, our nations Christian foundation was unavoidable as the pastors toured the paintings in the Capitol Rotunda. According to Barton, the life-size paintings depicted "2 prayer meetings, a bible study and a baptism."* Another painting showed the signers of the Declaration of Independence; 29 of which had seminary degrees.

The second day the pastors met with Christian members of Congress and Senate. Many pastors felt a call to pray for these legislators as they consistenly vote biblically. White House Office of Public Liaison Tim Goeglein, Sen. Sam Brownback, Rep. Randy Forbes and Rep. Marilyn Musgrave especially moved pastors.

The trip was more than just moving; it was a call to action. Many pastors made commitments to participate in get-out-the-vote and voter registration drives, preach sermons on civic involvement and encourage their congregations to be salt and light in their communities.

In the words of the pastors, the trip was “life changing” and “a must for all pastors.”

* Embarkation of the Pilgrims, Baptism of Pocahontas, Discovery of the Mississippi, Landing of Columbus

Bait and Switch on Children's Health Insurance Program Bill

President Bush vetoed the SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance program) recently passed by Congress. The veto will no doubt be accompanied by recriminations that the President doesn't care about children.

A closer look at the program points out what is really involved. Louisiana Congressman Jim McCrery, in a Washington Times editorial, discusses the bait and switch nature of the legislation with the ultimate goal being a government run health care system. Such a system would be a disaster for not only children but everybody else.

How does this bait and switch work? By setting up a system which encourages not just poor children but middle income families to get in the government health insurance program. It proposes spending $8.4 billion dollars in 2012 but then cutting government funding to $600 million in 2013. This means the government will be forced to dig deep to keep insuring all the people who have become dependent on the government for their health insurance.

Another interesting point is the 61 cent cigarette tax proposed to pay for it. The Heritage Foundation estimates there will need to be 22 million new smokers over the next ten years to keep the program funded via the cigarette tax. In other words, some of the same children getting the health insurance will have to start smoking to keep the program going.

The bottom line is expanding government involvement in health care will not solve our health care crisis. Government should be empowering people to meet their own health care needs rather than working to make more people dependent on government for their health care. Frankly, government’s distortion of health care system has led to out of control costs and which in turn means too many families unable to afford health care.

McCain is right, America was founded on Christian principles

By Hannah Huffman

Presidential candidate John McCain drew severe criticism for describing the United States as a "Christian nation" and a "nation founded on Christian principles."

While some misguided souls may be offended by McCain’s comments, MFC agrees; the United States is a "nation founded on Christian principles." The historical evidence is insurmountable.

The Founding Fathers always intended for the free expression of religion in the public square even in the arena of government. Their writings, public statements and actions consistently affirmed their belief that America would only survive on a solidly biblical and Christian foundation.

John Adams blatantly stated that, “the general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were … the general principles of Christianity.”

Thomas Jefferson, writer of the constitution and third U.S. president said, “ [The] liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will [is] a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support.”

“And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?”

George Washington, in his Farewell Speech, beseeched his fellow countrymen to ensure that religious teachings and values never be removed from politics and public policy, saying: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”

Even President Harry Truman openly acknowledged our Christian heritage: “In this great country of ours has been demonstrated the fundamental unity of Christianity and democracy.”

McCain is drawing attention to the historical evidence of our Founding Fathers and presidents. While respecting other religions, he is right to assert that America was founded on Christian principles. McCain’s commitment to our Christian heritage should be applauded.

Bait and switch in New Jersey

They will never compromise.

In every state that has approved civil unions or domestic partnerships, same sex marriage supporters have insisted upon legalization of same-sex marriage - almost the very next day.

Don't expect anything different in Minnesota. Rest assured that if the Minnesota legislature had legalized same-sex marriage (domestic partnerships) for hospital visitation privileges in the 2007 session, OutFront Minnesota would be back demanding more in the 2008 session.

Just ask them.

N.J. Commission Expected to Push for Same-Sex 'Marriage'

From Citizen Link

Apparently, homosexuals are not satisfied with civil union law.

Gay activists are complaining that New Jersey’s civil union law is failing. Family groups say this is the next phase of getting what homosexuals want — full-marriage status.

The Civil Union Review Commission has launched its first of three biweekly meetings to hear complaints that civil unions are a “failed experiment” and carry a “second-class status.”

“The net effect of that law was simply to create a vehicle by which homosexual activists could run a dog-and-pony show, essentially to force the Legislature's hand to create same-sex marriages rather than civil unions," said Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action.

Len Deo of the New Jersey Family Policy Council said the commission is stacked. “Steven Goldstein is the head of Garden State Equality, which is the leading homosexual-rights activist group in New Jersey," he told Family News in Focus. "On top of that, he’s also the vice chairman of the Civil Unions Commission — which is basically the wolf watching the henhouse.”

The commission is expected to present its findings to lawmakers to justify a bill allowing same-sex marriage. John White with the Knights of Columbus said that was the plan all along.

“They haven’t been satisfied with domestic partnerships," he said. "That was supposed to be all they wanted. The next thing they wanted was civil unions, they got civil unions, and now that’s not enough.”