Long delayed but not shrunken with time, a nearly $410 billion omnibus spending bill is fast becoming a great bone in the throat for Democrats and the White House, just when each hoped to put the past behind them and move onto President Barack Obama’s new 2010 budget.
Minutes after hitting the Senate floor Monday, the bill touched off a fierce, emotional attack from the president’s old rival, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who lectured Obama for failing to do more to stand up against the thousands of spending earmarks in the 1,132 pages. At the same time, Democrats admitted privately that the White House itself has hurt their cause by frightening off Republicans, who negotiated the bill in December but are now in “sticker shock” after seeing the full cost of the new president’s agenda. The giant measure covers more than a dozen Cabinet departments and represents unfinished business from last fall, when Democrats and the Bush administration were at loggerheads over domestic spending. But in today’s environment — of soaring deficits and unemployment — it’s an explosive mix of parochial projects and new spending.
And as Obama himself famously quoted Faulkner in the campaign last year, “The past isn’t dead. It isn’t even past.” Certainly not for McCain. Monday’s floor speech was the most personal attack yet by the Arizona Republican in what has already become a surprisingly strained, often hostile approach to the new president. “If it seems like I’m angry, it’s because I am,” McCain said, taking the White House to task for treating the bill as leftover business — and not subject to the full measure of earmark reform promised by candidate Obama. “Last year’s business?” McCain asked, incredulous. “The president will sign this appropriations bill into law. It is the president’s business. It is the president of the United States’ business. It is the president of the United States’ business to do what he said — stated — when we were in debate seeking the support of the American people — where he said he would work to eliminate earmarks.”
“We need earmark reform and when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure we’re not spending money unwisely,” McCain said, reading back Obama’s words at a debate last fall. “That’s the quote, the promise of the president of the United States made to the American people in a debate with me in Oxford, Miss. So what is brought to the floor today — 9,000 earmarks.…So much for change.”
Read it all here.
Thinking about ethics and current events (Began 1 April 2008)
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Obama Team Takes on Limbaugh
WASHINGTON — The Obama White House has begun advancing an aggressive political strategy: convincing the country that the real power behind the Republican Party is not the GOP leaders in Congress or at the Republican National Committee, but rather provocative radio talk show king Rush Limbaugh.
President Barack Obama, top presidential aides and outside Democratic allies have been pushing the message in unison.
At a briefing Monday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked to react to Limbaugh's speech over the weekend at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Limbaugh was characteristically critical of Obama.
"So what is so strange about being honest to say that I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation?" Limbaugh said. "Why would I want that to succeed?"
Gibbs was prepared for the question."I think it would be charitable to say he doubled down on what he said in January in wishing and hoping for economic failure in this country," Gibbs said.
At a private meeting in January, the president told Republican lawmakers that they needed to tune out Limbaugh if they wanted to get things done.
A president's stature is such that anything he makes a focus is immediately elevated. Would Obama be better off ignoring an influential critic with an audience that numbers in the millions? Asked about that Monday, Gibbs stood his ground.
He called Limbaugh "a national spokesperson for conservative views and many in the Republican Party."
"You know," Gibbs said, "I think he elevated himself. He's got, I understand, a fairly popular show."
With the White House working to make Limbaugh the face of the GOP, it is getting some outside assistance.
A tax-exempt group that supports progressive causes — Americans United for Change—is helping finance a television ad that claims GOP leaders are beholden to the radio host. The ad closes with Limbaugh saying of Obama, "I want him to fail."
Reaad it all here.
President Barack Obama, top presidential aides and outside Democratic allies have been pushing the message in unison.
At a briefing Monday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked to react to Limbaugh's speech over the weekend at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Limbaugh was characteristically critical of Obama.
"So what is so strange about being honest to say that I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation?" Limbaugh said. "Why would I want that to succeed?"
Gibbs was prepared for the question."I think it would be charitable to say he doubled down on what he said in January in wishing and hoping for economic failure in this country," Gibbs said.
At a private meeting in January, the president told Republican lawmakers that they needed to tune out Limbaugh if they wanted to get things done.
A president's stature is such that anything he makes a focus is immediately elevated. Would Obama be better off ignoring an influential critic with an audience that numbers in the millions? Asked about that Monday, Gibbs stood his ground.
He called Limbaugh "a national spokesperson for conservative views and many in the Republican Party."
"You know," Gibbs said, "I think he elevated himself. He's got, I understand, a fairly popular show."
With the White House working to make Limbaugh the face of the GOP, it is getting some outside assistance.
A tax-exempt group that supports progressive causes — Americans United for Change—is helping finance a television ad that claims GOP leaders are beholden to the radio host. The ad closes with Limbaugh saying of Obama, "I want him to fail."
Reaad it all here.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Gay Activists and Civil Rights
By Robert Gagnon (Hat Tip Virtueonline)
Most people have not been closely following the implications of the promotion of the homosexual agenda in other Western countries, especially Canada and Sweden, or even in selected areas of the United States. Here are some results that would follow from granting homosexual marriage or its legal equivalent and making "sexual orientation" a specially protected civil rights category for "hate speech" and "non-discrimination" laws.
(1) Go to jail for "hate speech." If a "Human Rights Commission" finds that you have made public statements that "incites hatred" against homosexual persons, you may go to prison. Ultimately, even ministers of the gospel will not be exempt.
This past June in Sweden a Pentecostal minister, Ake Green, was sentenced to a month in prison for referring to homosexual practice in a sermon as a "horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society." The public prosecutor commented: "Collecting Bible [verses] on this topic as he does makes this hate speech." The Swedish parliament has already given initial approval to a constitutional amendment that would prohibit any speech that "implies unfavorable treatment" to homosexual persons, with a prison sentence of up to two years.
Even highly placed church officials face the specter of prosecution. In the Catholic Church, Belgian Cardinal Gustaaf Joos faces an anti-discrimination lawsuit for remarks that he made in 2003 about homosexuality and the Church’s teaching in a Belgium magazine. Madrid Cardinal Antonio Maria Rouco Varela is facing a suit in Spain for preaching against homosexuality in a sermon he gave in 2003. In 2000 Dutch authorities even contemplated bringing charges against Pope John Paul II after he declared a homosexual rally in Rome to be “an offense to Christian values.” They backed off only when they were forced to concede that the Pope had "global immunity." In Oct. 2003 Anglican Bishop of Chester, England, Peter Forster, was investigated by police by making the following "hate" comment in an interview with a local newspaper: "Some people who are primarily homosexual can re-orientate themselves. . . . We want to help them, but I don’t offer it as a pancea." The police chief declared that the comments were "totally unacceptable" and compared the remarks to offenses against ethnic minorities "generated by hate and prejudice."
Just three weeks ago in Philadelphia eleven people belonging to a Christian evangelistic group called "Repent America" were arrested for singing hymns and carrying signs ("Homosexuality Is Sin; Christ Can Set You Free") at a homosexual celebration called "Outfest." They were charged with "ethnic intimidation" under Pennsylvania’s "hate crime" law ("sexual orientation" and "gender identity" were added to the law this past summer). This, along with a charge of "criminal conspiracy," and other trumped-up charges, could result in a prison sentence of up to 47 years.
(2) Lose your job for not supporting "coming out" celebrations at work or for "discriminatory" speech outside of the workplace. That’s right, you can even be fired from your job for statements made outside your place of employment. Chris Kempling, a public school teacher and guidance counselor in British Columbia, Canada, was suspended for one month, without pay, for writing allegedly "discriminatory and derogatory statements against homosexuals" to a local newspaper. What kind of terrible statements did Kempling write? Things such as: "Gay people are seriously at risk [of sexually transmitted disease], not because of heterosexual attitudes but because of their sexual behavior"; and "Homosexual relationships are unstable, ‘gay’ sex poses health risks and many religions consider homosexuality immoral." In a decision against Kempling handed down this past February by the British Columbia Supreme Court, Justice Ronald Holmes stated that "discriminatory speech" made outside the workplace can be punished by one’s employer if one belongs to the "teaching profession" or "any [other] profession" (i.e., a white-collar job).
In 1998 Annie Coffey-Montes, a New York Bell Atlantic employee for 20 years, was fired for attempting to remove herself from the e-mail list of GLOBE (Gay and Lesbians of Bell Atlantic), which advertised “gay pride” parades, “coming out” parties, and homosexual dances. After a year of petitioning her supervisor to have her name removed, she responded to one GLOBE e-mail with: “Please take me off this email. I find it morally offensive. God bless you.” She ended by citing Romans 1:27. Coffey-Montes was fired for “creating a hostile work environment.” In 2001 Albert Buonanno was fired from AT&T Broadband of Denver for not signing a "certificate of understanding" stating that he would "fully value sexual orientation differences." In Oct. 2002 Rolf Szabo, a 23-year employee of The Eastman Kodak Company was fired when he responded to an e-mail requiring supervisors to promote a "Coming Out Day" for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender employees with the following: "Please do not send this type of information to me anymore, as I find it disgusting and offensive. Thank you." In 2003 Richard Peterson at Hewlett-Packard’s office in Boise, Idaho, posted at his cubicle two Bible verses critical of homosexual practice in response to a poster of two homosexual man placed near his cubicle. He was fired for not "accepting [the company's] values."
(3) Be fined and pay heavy legal fees for daring to criticize, or not supporting with your business, homosexual practice. Two incidents in Canada give a good indication of where things are headed. Canadian print shop owner Scott Brockie was ordered to pay a fine of $5000 because he refused to print homosexual advocacy materials for the Canadian Gay and Lesbian Archives. In attempting to defend himself in the courts, Brockie not only incurred over $100,000 in legal expenses beyond his legal defense fund, but was also ordered by the Ontario Court of Appeal this past year to pay the $40,000 incurred by the Ontario Human Rights Commission for prosecuting him. Hugh Owens, a Canadian correctional-center guard, was fined $4500 by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission in 2002 for taking out an ad in a local newspaper that responded to a "Gay Pride" celebration. The ad reproduced a bumper sticker that Owens had created, showing two male stick figures holding hands, with a line through the picture, and the mere citation of four references from the Bible against homosexual practice (no quotations). Owens, who had to represent himself because he could not afford legal representation, may yet have to pay the prosecuting expenses of the Human Rights Commission.
In California businesses that don’t offer benefits to homosexual couples are denied state contracts, irrespective of the business owner’s religious beliefs. Moreover, perceived workplace discrimination against "transgendered" persons (both transsexuals and transvestites) makes businesses liable to a $150,000 fine.
(4) Have your children taken away from you if you teach them "homophobic" ideas. In 2003 Dr. Cheryl Clark was ordered by a Denver Circuit Court judge and later in 2004 by the Colorado Court of Appeals not to say anything to her adopted daughter that her ex-lesbian partner might construe as "homophobic." In California potential foster parents who express disapproval of homosexual practice are disqualified from foster care. Adoption qualifications will one day screen potential parents on the basis of their stance toward "sexual orientation differences." Where is this ultimately headed? It is not hard to imagine. Suppose your child wonders whether he or she is bisexual, homosexual, or transgendered—not a far-fetched possibility given the coercive promotion of bisexuality, homosexuality, and transgenderism in the school systems and the higher percentage of orientation confusion among adolescents. If your child then tells the school guidance counselor that you regard homosexual behavior as sin, the counselor will report the matter to your state Child Protective Services and your child will be removed from your home. The state will reason: Would we tolerate black children raised in the homes of Klu Klux Klan members?
(5) Have the school systems teach your children that you are a hateful bigot. In California all public schools, as well as private and religious schools that receive state money, must have curricula that “foster appreciation” for sexual orientation differences. An example of the kind of material that children can be subjected to includes a presentation sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Educational Network (GLSEN) called “Cootie Shots.” In one of the skits a young boy declares how wonderful it is to dress “in Mommy’s high heals.” “What’s wrong with being like a girl? ! / . . . They are swine, I am the pearl! / And let them laugh and let them scream! / They’ll be beheaded when I’m queen!” In a GLSEN video, “It’s Elementary,” a resource promoted to elementary school teachers, an 8-year old girl reads her essay to her class stating that those who accept the Bible’s teaching on homosexual practice are stupid. The teacher gives her essay an award.
In 2002 the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that neither parents nor school boards could prevent public school children, even in kindergarten and first-grade, from being instructed in the classroom about the acceptability of homosexual relationships. This is what is coming to America. If you are fortunate enough to have your children embrace your values in sexual ethics they will marginalized as the moral equivalent of racists and humiliated in the classroom.
(6) Other Consequences. The ramifications of making "sexual orientation" a nationally protected civil rights category are endless. Here we can only mention briefly a few other consequences.
Adoption agencies will not be able to give any priority to heterosexual married couples over homosexual couples because that would be discrimination. It makes no difference that the child is exposed to a homosexual environment and would be more inclined from this to experiment in homosexual behavior. It makes no difference that the vast majority of homosexual relationships will be not be long-term and monogamous.
Christian groups on college campuses that do not allow practicing, self-affirming homosexuals as leaders will be charged with discrimination and kicked off campus.
Professionals who have affiliation with such "discriminatory" groups as the Boy Scouts or the Salvation Army will be subjected to censure. Already, for example, the American Bar Association is considering prohibiting judges from involvement with any organizations that "discriminate" on the basis of "sexual orientation."
Christian colleges and seminaries that are suspected of "sexual orientation" discrimination—whether in hiring professors, allowing any faculty to say in class that homosexual practice is sin, or failing to provide "domestic partner benefits" to homosexual employees or "married student housing" to homosexual students—will be denied access to federal student loans. Eventually accreditation will be affected since the Association of Theological Schools cannot permit institutions to perpetuate the "moral equivalent" of racism.
In order to protect themselves from federal lawsuits or civil suits, corporations will need to prove that they do not discriminate on the basis of "sexual orientation" by adopting affirmative-hire programs for self-professed GLBTs (gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered persons). It will not be good enough to have an "orientation-blind" policy.
The Bottom Line
The one political concern where the greatest sea change in the federal government’s policies is likely to come is not in social programs for the disadvantaged, the environment, taxes, or even the Iraq War. No, the greatest change is likely to come on the issue of homosexual advocacy and the oppressive hand of the federal government against those who resist the false conclusion that homosexual practice is a normal, natural, and acceptable form of behavior that society should promote. It is on this issue that there is a serious prospect of radical abridgement of your religious and civil freedoms, to the point of being fired or imprisoned. What could be more alarming? Every Christian has a civic responsibility to engage the political process with a view to preventing such tragic results.
Note to the reader: For a more detailed description of ways in which the homosexual agenda has abridged civic freedoms of believers see pp. 10-18 of my response to David Balch.
Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D. is Associate Professor of New Testament, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, gagnon@pts.edu
Most people have not been closely following the implications of the promotion of the homosexual agenda in other Western countries, especially Canada and Sweden, or even in selected areas of the United States. Here are some results that would follow from granting homosexual marriage or its legal equivalent and making "sexual orientation" a specially protected civil rights category for "hate speech" and "non-discrimination" laws.
(1) Go to jail for "hate speech." If a "Human Rights Commission" finds that you have made public statements that "incites hatred" against homosexual persons, you may go to prison. Ultimately, even ministers of the gospel will not be exempt.
This past June in Sweden a Pentecostal minister, Ake Green, was sentenced to a month in prison for referring to homosexual practice in a sermon as a "horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society." The public prosecutor commented: "Collecting Bible [verses] on this topic as he does makes this hate speech." The Swedish parliament has already given initial approval to a constitutional amendment that would prohibit any speech that "implies unfavorable treatment" to homosexual persons, with a prison sentence of up to two years.
Even highly placed church officials face the specter of prosecution. In the Catholic Church, Belgian Cardinal Gustaaf Joos faces an anti-discrimination lawsuit for remarks that he made in 2003 about homosexuality and the Church’s teaching in a Belgium magazine. Madrid Cardinal Antonio Maria Rouco Varela is facing a suit in Spain for preaching against homosexuality in a sermon he gave in 2003. In 2000 Dutch authorities even contemplated bringing charges against Pope John Paul II after he declared a homosexual rally in Rome to be “an offense to Christian values.” They backed off only when they were forced to concede that the Pope had "global immunity." In Oct. 2003 Anglican Bishop of Chester, England, Peter Forster, was investigated by police by making the following "hate" comment in an interview with a local newspaper: "Some people who are primarily homosexual can re-orientate themselves. . . . We want to help them, but I don’t offer it as a pancea." The police chief declared that the comments were "totally unacceptable" and compared the remarks to offenses against ethnic minorities "generated by hate and prejudice."
Just three weeks ago in Philadelphia eleven people belonging to a Christian evangelistic group called "Repent America" were arrested for singing hymns and carrying signs ("Homosexuality Is Sin; Christ Can Set You Free") at a homosexual celebration called "Outfest." They were charged with "ethnic intimidation" under Pennsylvania’s "hate crime" law ("sexual orientation" and "gender identity" were added to the law this past summer). This, along with a charge of "criminal conspiracy," and other trumped-up charges, could result in a prison sentence of up to 47 years.
(2) Lose your job for not supporting "coming out" celebrations at work or for "discriminatory" speech outside of the workplace. That’s right, you can even be fired from your job for statements made outside your place of employment. Chris Kempling, a public school teacher and guidance counselor in British Columbia, Canada, was suspended for one month, without pay, for writing allegedly "discriminatory and derogatory statements against homosexuals" to a local newspaper. What kind of terrible statements did Kempling write? Things such as: "Gay people are seriously at risk [of sexually transmitted disease], not because of heterosexual attitudes but because of their sexual behavior"; and "Homosexual relationships are unstable, ‘gay’ sex poses health risks and many religions consider homosexuality immoral." In a decision against Kempling handed down this past February by the British Columbia Supreme Court, Justice Ronald Holmes stated that "discriminatory speech" made outside the workplace can be punished by one’s employer if one belongs to the "teaching profession" or "any [other] profession" (i.e., a white-collar job).
In 1998 Annie Coffey-Montes, a New York Bell Atlantic employee for 20 years, was fired for attempting to remove herself from the e-mail list of GLOBE (Gay and Lesbians of Bell Atlantic), which advertised “gay pride” parades, “coming out” parties, and homosexual dances. After a year of petitioning her supervisor to have her name removed, she responded to one GLOBE e-mail with: “Please take me off this email. I find it morally offensive. God bless you.” She ended by citing Romans 1:27. Coffey-Montes was fired for “creating a hostile work environment.” In 2001 Albert Buonanno was fired from AT&T Broadband of Denver for not signing a "certificate of understanding" stating that he would "fully value sexual orientation differences." In Oct. 2002 Rolf Szabo, a 23-year employee of The Eastman Kodak Company was fired when he responded to an e-mail requiring supervisors to promote a "Coming Out Day" for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender employees with the following: "Please do not send this type of information to me anymore, as I find it disgusting and offensive. Thank you." In 2003 Richard Peterson at Hewlett-Packard’s office in Boise, Idaho, posted at his cubicle two Bible verses critical of homosexual practice in response to a poster of two homosexual man placed near his cubicle. He was fired for not "accepting [the company's] values."
(3) Be fined and pay heavy legal fees for daring to criticize, or not supporting with your business, homosexual practice. Two incidents in Canada give a good indication of where things are headed. Canadian print shop owner Scott Brockie was ordered to pay a fine of $5000 because he refused to print homosexual advocacy materials for the Canadian Gay and Lesbian Archives. In attempting to defend himself in the courts, Brockie not only incurred over $100,000 in legal expenses beyond his legal defense fund, but was also ordered by the Ontario Court of Appeal this past year to pay the $40,000 incurred by the Ontario Human Rights Commission for prosecuting him. Hugh Owens, a Canadian correctional-center guard, was fined $4500 by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission in 2002 for taking out an ad in a local newspaper that responded to a "Gay Pride" celebration. The ad reproduced a bumper sticker that Owens had created, showing two male stick figures holding hands, with a line through the picture, and the mere citation of four references from the Bible against homosexual practice (no quotations). Owens, who had to represent himself because he could not afford legal representation, may yet have to pay the prosecuting expenses of the Human Rights Commission.
In California businesses that don’t offer benefits to homosexual couples are denied state contracts, irrespective of the business owner’s religious beliefs. Moreover, perceived workplace discrimination against "transgendered" persons (both transsexuals and transvestites) makes businesses liable to a $150,000 fine.
(4) Have your children taken away from you if you teach them "homophobic" ideas. In 2003 Dr. Cheryl Clark was ordered by a Denver Circuit Court judge and later in 2004 by the Colorado Court of Appeals not to say anything to her adopted daughter that her ex-lesbian partner might construe as "homophobic." In California potential foster parents who express disapproval of homosexual practice are disqualified from foster care. Adoption qualifications will one day screen potential parents on the basis of their stance toward "sexual orientation differences." Where is this ultimately headed? It is not hard to imagine. Suppose your child wonders whether he or she is bisexual, homosexual, or transgendered—not a far-fetched possibility given the coercive promotion of bisexuality, homosexuality, and transgenderism in the school systems and the higher percentage of orientation confusion among adolescents. If your child then tells the school guidance counselor that you regard homosexual behavior as sin, the counselor will report the matter to your state Child Protective Services and your child will be removed from your home. The state will reason: Would we tolerate black children raised in the homes of Klu Klux Klan members?
(5) Have the school systems teach your children that you are a hateful bigot. In California all public schools, as well as private and religious schools that receive state money, must have curricula that “foster appreciation” for sexual orientation differences. An example of the kind of material that children can be subjected to includes a presentation sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Educational Network (GLSEN) called “Cootie Shots.” In one of the skits a young boy declares how wonderful it is to dress “in Mommy’s high heals.” “What’s wrong with being like a girl? ! / . . . They are swine, I am the pearl! / And let them laugh and let them scream! / They’ll be beheaded when I’m queen!” In a GLSEN video, “It’s Elementary,” a resource promoted to elementary school teachers, an 8-year old girl reads her essay to her class stating that those who accept the Bible’s teaching on homosexual practice are stupid. The teacher gives her essay an award.
In 2002 the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that neither parents nor school boards could prevent public school children, even in kindergarten and first-grade, from being instructed in the classroom about the acceptability of homosexual relationships. This is what is coming to America. If you are fortunate enough to have your children embrace your values in sexual ethics they will marginalized as the moral equivalent of racists and humiliated in the classroom.
(6) Other Consequences. The ramifications of making "sexual orientation" a nationally protected civil rights category are endless. Here we can only mention briefly a few other consequences.
Adoption agencies will not be able to give any priority to heterosexual married couples over homosexual couples because that would be discrimination. It makes no difference that the child is exposed to a homosexual environment and would be more inclined from this to experiment in homosexual behavior. It makes no difference that the vast majority of homosexual relationships will be not be long-term and monogamous.
Christian groups on college campuses that do not allow practicing, self-affirming homosexuals as leaders will be charged with discrimination and kicked off campus.
Professionals who have affiliation with such "discriminatory" groups as the Boy Scouts or the Salvation Army will be subjected to censure. Already, for example, the American Bar Association is considering prohibiting judges from involvement with any organizations that "discriminate" on the basis of "sexual orientation."
Christian colleges and seminaries that are suspected of "sexual orientation" discrimination—whether in hiring professors, allowing any faculty to say in class that homosexual practice is sin, or failing to provide "domestic partner benefits" to homosexual employees or "married student housing" to homosexual students—will be denied access to federal student loans. Eventually accreditation will be affected since the Association of Theological Schools cannot permit institutions to perpetuate the "moral equivalent" of racism.
In order to protect themselves from federal lawsuits or civil suits, corporations will need to prove that they do not discriminate on the basis of "sexual orientation" by adopting affirmative-hire programs for self-professed GLBTs (gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered persons). It will not be good enough to have an "orientation-blind" policy.
The Bottom Line
The one political concern where the greatest sea change in the federal government’s policies is likely to come is not in social programs for the disadvantaged, the environment, taxes, or even the Iraq War. No, the greatest change is likely to come on the issue of homosexual advocacy and the oppressive hand of the federal government against those who resist the false conclusion that homosexual practice is a normal, natural, and acceptable form of behavior that society should promote. It is on this issue that there is a serious prospect of radical abridgement of your religious and civil freedoms, to the point of being fired or imprisoned. What could be more alarming? Every Christian has a civic responsibility to engage the political process with a view to preventing such tragic results.
Note to the reader: For a more detailed description of ways in which the homosexual agenda has abridged civic freedoms of believers see pp. 10-18 of my response to David Balch.
Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D. is Associate Professor of New Testament, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, gagnon@pts.edu
Damascus: Patriarchal See of the Antiochian Orthodox Church
(Washington, D.C., March 2, 2009) -- Something remarkable is taking place tonight in Damascus, the capital of Syria.
More than 1,100 senior Syrian government officials, journalists, business leaders and religious leaders -- Muslim, Catholic, Orthodox and evangelical Christian -- will preview a motion picture entitled "DAMASCUS," written, produced and directed entirely by Arab Christians. The film, part documentary and part narrative drama, tells of how Saul of Tarsus, a persecutor of Christ's followers, became a follower of Jesus after a miraculous encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus.
Events in Paul's life are dramatized by famous Syrian Muslim actors playing the parts of Jews and Jewish followers of Jesus.
After the premiere, the film is expected to be launched throughout Syria and the rest of the Muslim world. Sources indicate senior Catholic leaders in the Vatican recently reviewed the film and were favorable.
Syria's government has never been controlled by Radical Islamic jihadists. Still, it has long stifled activities by Arab Christians to teach others about their faith. It is not clear what the Assad government's motives are for supporting the release of "DAMASCUS", but it is an encouraging development.
More than 1,100 senior Syrian government officials, journalists, business leaders and religious leaders -- Muslim, Catholic, Orthodox and evangelical Christian -- will preview a motion picture entitled "DAMASCUS," written, produced and directed entirely by Arab Christians. The film, part documentary and part narrative drama, tells of how Saul of Tarsus, a persecutor of Christ's followers, became a follower of Jesus after a miraculous encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus.
Events in Paul's life are dramatized by famous Syrian Muslim actors playing the parts of Jews and Jewish followers of Jesus.
After the premiere, the film is expected to be launched throughout Syria and the rest of the Muslim world. Sources indicate senior Catholic leaders in the Vatican recently reviewed the film and were favorable.
Syria's government has never been controlled by Radical Islamic jihadists. Still, it has long stifled activities by Arab Christians to teach others about their faith. It is not clear what the Assad government's motives are for supporting the release of "DAMASCUS", but it is an encouraging development.
Journalists Reporting on Darfur are Expelled
2 March 2009 - Freelance journalist Zouhir Latif deported following sudden arrest
SOURCE: Reporters sans frontières (RSF), Paris(RSF/IFEX) - Reporters Without Borders condemns the deportation of Tunisian journalist Zouhir Latif on 1 March 2009. Latif, who has political refugee status in Britain, was put on a flight bound for London following his arrest on 27 February.
A freelance journalist who works for France 24's Arabic-language service and the pan-Arab daily "Al-Hayat", Latif was arrested at his home in Khartoum by intelligence agents and held for 48 hours before being expelled. Intelligence agents confiscated his computer's hard drive as well as video material and cassettes.
"We call on the Sudanese authorities to urgently explain this arrest, which comes less than a month after the expulsion of Heba Aly, a journalist with Canadian and Egyptian dual citizenship.", the organisation said.
Latif had just spent 21 days in the western region of Darfur although the travel permits issued to the journalists by the authorities are usually for periods of no longer than two weeks. According to local sources, his arrest could be linked to this visit to Darfur and the fact that he also works for the World Food Programme, a UN agency.
Heba Aly, who was working in Sudan for various international news media including Bloomberg News and IRIN (a UN humanitarian news agency), was deported on 2 February. Her expulsion may have been linked to her visits toDarfur and her reporting on the local arms industry.
For further information on the Aly case, see:http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/100738
SOURCE: Reporters sans frontières (RSF), Paris(RSF/IFEX) - Reporters Without Borders condemns the deportation of Tunisian journalist Zouhir Latif on 1 March 2009. Latif, who has political refugee status in Britain, was put on a flight bound for London following his arrest on 27 February.
A freelance journalist who works for France 24's Arabic-language service and the pan-Arab daily "Al-Hayat", Latif was arrested at his home in Khartoum by intelligence agents and held for 48 hours before being expelled. Intelligence agents confiscated his computer's hard drive as well as video material and cassettes.
"We call on the Sudanese authorities to urgently explain this arrest, which comes less than a month after the expulsion of Heba Aly, a journalist with Canadian and Egyptian dual citizenship.", the organisation said.
Latif had just spent 21 days in the western region of Darfur although the travel permits issued to the journalists by the authorities are usually for periods of no longer than two weeks. According to local sources, his arrest could be linked to this visit to Darfur and the fact that he also works for the World Food Programme, a UN agency.
Heba Aly, who was working in Sudan for various international news media including Bloomberg News and IRIN (a UN humanitarian news agency), was deported on 2 February. Her expulsion may have been linked to her visits toDarfur and her reporting on the local arms industry.
For further information on the Aly case, see:http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/100738
Sebelius' Record on Abortion
Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D), President Obama's choice to head the Department of Health and Human Services, has touched off criticism over her association with a Kansas abortion provider.
Sebelius vetoed a late-term aborition law in 2008, and in 2007 she held a reception at the Kansas governor's mansion that included Dr. George Tiller, a Wichita doctor whose clinic provided late-term abortions. Tiller was under investigation for violating that state's restrictions on some forms of abortion.
The reception, which Sebelius office said Tiller won at an auction, has nonetheless ignited a furor among anti-abortion rights groups and activists.
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins called Sebelius an "extremely pro-abortion" pick to head HHS."
In her time as an elected official in Kansas, Mrs. Sebelius has fought against popular pro-life measures such as parental consent and efforts to curb late-term abortions," Perkins said in a statement. "
Additionally she has had a close personal and financial association with the nation’s most infamous abortion doctor, George Tiller, who specializes in late-term abortions and, by his own count, has performed over 60,000 abortions."
Patrick Mahoney, executive director of the Christian Defense Coalition, said within an hour of the news of Sebelius' nomination on Saturday night, he had been in touch with many social conservatives about formulating a strategy to oppose the nomination. One facet of that strategy will be to hold a news conference this week, he said.
Mahoney acknowledged it will be extremely difficult to thwart the Sebelius nomination in a Democratic-controlled Senate, but claimed that Obama's selection will hurt him with Catholic voters.
Read it all here.
America has seen 45 million babies aborted since Roe v Wade. When will the murder stop? When YOU tell your legislators "No more!"
Sebelius vetoed a late-term aborition law in 2008, and in 2007 she held a reception at the Kansas governor's mansion that included Dr. George Tiller, a Wichita doctor whose clinic provided late-term abortions. Tiller was under investigation for violating that state's restrictions on some forms of abortion.
The reception, which Sebelius office said Tiller won at an auction, has nonetheless ignited a furor among anti-abortion rights groups and activists.
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins called Sebelius an "extremely pro-abortion" pick to head HHS."
In her time as an elected official in Kansas, Mrs. Sebelius has fought against popular pro-life measures such as parental consent and efforts to curb late-term abortions," Perkins said in a statement. "
Additionally she has had a close personal and financial association with the nation’s most infamous abortion doctor, George Tiller, who specializes in late-term abortions and, by his own count, has performed over 60,000 abortions."
Patrick Mahoney, executive director of the Christian Defense Coalition, said within an hour of the news of Sebelius' nomination on Saturday night, he had been in touch with many social conservatives about formulating a strategy to oppose the nomination. One facet of that strategy will be to hold a news conference this week, he said.
Mahoney acknowledged it will be extremely difficult to thwart the Sebelius nomination in a Democratic-controlled Senate, but claimed that Obama's selection will hurt him with Catholic voters.
Read it all here.
America has seen 45 million babies aborted since Roe v Wade. When will the murder stop? When YOU tell your legislators "No more!"
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Middle East: Thorn in Obama's Side
He has dispatched envoys, offered his hand in friendship to old enemies and even raised the matter last night in his first big speech to Congress on the state of the nation. But no matter how hard Barack Obama tries, the Middle East is proving even more challenging a problem than he could have reasonably expected.
In the space of a few days the mess he inherited from George Bush has got a lot messier.
Take Israel. After elections this month that many in the West hoped would lead to a centrist coalition led by Tzipi Livni, the Kadima Party leader, the new Government will now be formed by the man who came second.
Binyamin Netanyahu, the Likud leader, will likely head the most right-wing coalition for two decades. To make matters worse, it will have a tiny five-seat majority in the Knesset, leaving it weak and unstable as well as ideologically incompatible with a new peace process.
On the Palestinian, side little has progressed since the bloody battle for Gaza in January. Hamas remains firmly in charge of the destroyed coastal strip, while the Palestinian Authority under its President, Mahmoud Abbas, looks weaker than ever.
While Palestinian-Israeli dialogue is unlikely to produce any movement for some time, there had been hopes of progress between Israel and its long-time enemy Syria.
Here the Americans can play a hugely positive role by re-engaging with Damascus after a four-year freeze in relations. Already there are signs of progress. Imad Mustafa, the Syrian Ambassador to Washington has been invited to a rare meeting at the State Department with a senior US official. The next step could be the reappointment of a US Ambassador to Damascus.
There are problems, however. Syria has not shown any inclination to halt its support for militant groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Worse, the United Nations is expected soon to press ahead with a trial into the murder of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese Prime Minister, whose assassination many blame on the Syrian regime. Should these allegations come to light in open court, ties with Damascus could be put back in the deep freeze.
Finally there is America’s relationship with Iran, probably the key to the future stability in the entire region. Both President Obama and his Iranian counterpart, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have raised the prospects of resuming direct dialogue 30 years after the two states became sworn enemies.
Read it all here.
In the space of a few days the mess he inherited from George Bush has got a lot messier.
Take Israel. After elections this month that many in the West hoped would lead to a centrist coalition led by Tzipi Livni, the Kadima Party leader, the new Government will now be formed by the man who came second.
Binyamin Netanyahu, the Likud leader, will likely head the most right-wing coalition for two decades. To make matters worse, it will have a tiny five-seat majority in the Knesset, leaving it weak and unstable as well as ideologically incompatible with a new peace process.
On the Palestinian, side little has progressed since the bloody battle for Gaza in January. Hamas remains firmly in charge of the destroyed coastal strip, while the Palestinian Authority under its President, Mahmoud Abbas, looks weaker than ever.
While Palestinian-Israeli dialogue is unlikely to produce any movement for some time, there had been hopes of progress between Israel and its long-time enemy Syria.
Here the Americans can play a hugely positive role by re-engaging with Damascus after a four-year freeze in relations. Already there are signs of progress. Imad Mustafa, the Syrian Ambassador to Washington has been invited to a rare meeting at the State Department with a senior US official. The next step could be the reappointment of a US Ambassador to Damascus.
There are problems, however. Syria has not shown any inclination to halt its support for militant groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Worse, the United Nations is expected soon to press ahead with a trial into the murder of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese Prime Minister, whose assassination many blame on the Syrian regime. Should these allegations come to light in open court, ties with Damascus could be put back in the deep freeze.
Finally there is America’s relationship with Iran, probably the key to the future stability in the entire region. Both President Obama and his Iranian counterpart, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have raised the prospects of resuming direct dialogue 30 years after the two states became sworn enemies.
Read it all here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)