The New York Times
By: NEELA BANERJEE
WASHINGTON, April 27 —The Anglican archbishop of Nigeria, a fierce critic of the Episcopal Church for its acceptance of homosexuality, is arriving next week to install a bishop to lead congregations around the country that want to break from it.
Episcopal leaders say the visit threatens to strain further the already fragile relations between their church and the rest of the worldwide Anglican Communion. But Episcopal traditionalists say there is a growing desire among them to break away. A decision by the Episcopal Church in 2003 to consecrate an openly gay priest, V. Gene Robinson, as the bishop of New Hampshire profoundly alienated those theological traditionalists, and most of the Anglican Communion overseas, who contend that the Bible condemns homosexuality.
The Nigerian archbishop, Peter J. Akinola, will preside over a ceremony in Virginia on May 5 installing Martyn Minns, former rector of an Episcopal church there, as the bishop of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, an offshoot of the Nigerian church.
The convocation was created in part to oversee congregations that no longer want to be in the Episcopal Church but would like to remain in the Anglican Communion.
Katharine Jefferts Schori, the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, said in a statement that Archbishop Akinola’s acceptance of “an invitation to episcopal ministry here without any notice or prior invitation” was not in keeping with “the ancient practice in most of the church” that bishops minister only within their own jurisdictions.
“This action would only serve to heighten current tensions,” the statement said, “and would be regrettable if it does indeed occur.”
Archbishop Akinola is the primate of the largest region, or province, in the 77-million-member Anglican Communion. He is also the leader of an increasingly successful alliance between theological conservatives in North America and those in the developing world that is pushing the Episcopal Church to renounce its acceptance of gay men and lesbians or face exclusion from the communion.
Click the following link to read entire article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/28/washington/28church.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1177765581-vXGd14v0eEjErOLM+8HBBw&oref=slogin
Monday, April 30, 2007
U.S. Governors Back Day of Prayer Except N.Y.
The Christian Post
By: Doug Huntington
April 30, 2007
New York Governor Eliot Spitzer has refused to sign a proclamation that supports this year’s National Day of Prayer, making him the only state head in the country not to have signed on.
The National Day of Prayer, which has been held annually for the past 56 years since President Truman signed into law a bill proclaiming the day, will take place this Thursday and encourages Americans to collaboratively pray for the nation, regardless of religious backgrounds.
“We want to make you aware of a slap in the face the governor of New York has delivered to people of faith all across the country,” voiced Citizenlink, a publication sponsored by Focus on the Family. “How arrogant that the governor of New York, which was the target of the vicious and unprovoked attacks on 9/11, does not believe the people of his state need divine guidance and protection.”
Since 1952, the National Day of Prayer has been held each year on the first Thursday of May. A task force, which is run out of Focus on the Family’s headquarters, is in charge of coordinating events, and was made to get more citizens united in prayer.
Although everyone is invited to join in the occasion, the day does not force prayer, but asks that people come together to pray in their own way for the nation’s leadership.
According to the task force’s official policy statement, “[The] diversity [of Americans] is what Congress intended when it designated the Day of Prayer, not that every faith and creed would be homogenized, but that all who sought to pray for this nation would be encouraged to do so in any way deemed appropriate.”
The day has five main topics that the task force focuses on which it considers the “five centers of power” - church, education, family, government and media.
Some faith-based organizations have encouraged Christians to call the New York office to show their concern for Spitzer not signing the National Day of Prayer proclamation.
“Won’t you take a minute or two – no matter what state you live in – to let Gov. Spitzer know what you think about his refusal to acknowledge the National Day of Prayer?” expressed Citizenlink. “Remind him that this country was founded as a Christian nation – and he will insult and offend millions if he continues down the path he is on.”
Several people in the Christian community have been expressing frustration with New York’s governor lately, especially after promising last Monday to propose a bill that would legalize same-sex “marriages” in the state.
Spitzer admitted that the bill had no “realistic shot” of being passed, but he still wanted to show his support for the homosexual agenda.
The New York governor was also criticized 5 years ago by pro-life groups for harassing 24 non-profit crisis pregnancy centers that sought to dissuade women from having abortions on behalf of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
By: Doug Huntington
April 30, 2007
New York Governor Eliot Spitzer has refused to sign a proclamation that supports this year’s National Day of Prayer, making him the only state head in the country not to have signed on.
The National Day of Prayer, which has been held annually for the past 56 years since President Truman signed into law a bill proclaiming the day, will take place this Thursday and encourages Americans to collaboratively pray for the nation, regardless of religious backgrounds.
“We want to make you aware of a slap in the face the governor of New York has delivered to people of faith all across the country,” voiced Citizenlink, a publication sponsored by Focus on the Family. “How arrogant that the governor of New York, which was the target of the vicious and unprovoked attacks on 9/11, does not believe the people of his state need divine guidance and protection.”
Since 1952, the National Day of Prayer has been held each year on the first Thursday of May. A task force, which is run out of Focus on the Family’s headquarters, is in charge of coordinating events, and was made to get more citizens united in prayer.
Although everyone is invited to join in the occasion, the day does not force prayer, but asks that people come together to pray in their own way for the nation’s leadership.
According to the task force’s official policy statement, “[The] diversity [of Americans] is what Congress intended when it designated the Day of Prayer, not that every faith and creed would be homogenized, but that all who sought to pray for this nation would be encouraged to do so in any way deemed appropriate.”
The day has five main topics that the task force focuses on which it considers the “five centers of power” - church, education, family, government and media.
Some faith-based organizations have encouraged Christians to call the New York office to show their concern for Spitzer not signing the National Day of Prayer proclamation.
“Won’t you take a minute or two – no matter what state you live in – to let Gov. Spitzer know what you think about his refusal to acknowledge the National Day of Prayer?” expressed Citizenlink. “Remind him that this country was founded as a Christian nation – and he will insult and offend millions if he continues down the path he is on.”
Several people in the Christian community have been expressing frustration with New York’s governor lately, especially after promising last Monday to propose a bill that would legalize same-sex “marriages” in the state.
Spitzer admitted that the bill had no “realistic shot” of being passed, but he still wanted to show his support for the homosexual agenda.
The New York governor was also criticized 5 years ago by pro-life groups for harassing 24 non-profit crisis pregnancy centers that sought to dissuade women from having abortions on behalf of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Supreme Court Sidesteps Conflict Between States Over Same-Sex Unions
Liberty Council - News Release
April 30, 2007
Washington, DC - Today the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to take one of the many facets of a complicated legal battle between Virginia and Vermont over same-sex unions and the right of fit, biological parents against unrelated third parties. The case is Miller v. Jenkins. Liberty Counsel represents Lisa Miller.
Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins entered into a Vermont civil union while residents of Virginia. Lisa gave birth to her minor child through artificial insemination from an anonymous donor, but the relationship ended when Janet became abusive and Lisa became a Christian. The Vermont Supreme Court granted parental rights to Janet, who continues in her lesbian lifestyle. However, in Virginia, where Lisa resides, the state law and constitutional amendment do not recognize any rights associated with same-sex marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships.
The Court was asked to review one of the rulings in the battle between Vermont and Virginia. Specifically, the Court was asked to review a Vermont Supreme Court decision that extended parental rights to Janet Jenkins over the objections of Lisa Miller, the fit, biological parent.
In deciding not to take the matter, the Court did not rule on the merits of the case. The case is still pending at the Vermont trial court, following the ruling by the Vermont Supreme Court. Once the trial court rules on visitation and custody, the case will go back to the Vermont Supreme Court and another petition will then be filed with the U.S. Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the High Court also has before it another petition of a ruling from the Virginia Court of Appeals. At the same time, the case is also currently pending before the Virginia Supreme Court.
Mathew D. Staver, the Founder of Liberty Counsel and the Dean of Liberty University School of Law, said: "The clash between Vermont and Virginia illustrates the need for protection, so that one state is not forced to accept same-sex unions from another state. This case will soon return to the High Court. Same-sex advocates are using children to further their agenda. The agenda is self-centered. That is sad, because children are not political fodder."
April 30, 2007
Washington, DC - Today the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to take one of the many facets of a complicated legal battle between Virginia and Vermont over same-sex unions and the right of fit, biological parents against unrelated third parties. The case is Miller v. Jenkins. Liberty Counsel represents Lisa Miller.
Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins entered into a Vermont civil union while residents of Virginia. Lisa gave birth to her minor child through artificial insemination from an anonymous donor, but the relationship ended when Janet became abusive and Lisa became a Christian. The Vermont Supreme Court granted parental rights to Janet, who continues in her lesbian lifestyle. However, in Virginia, where Lisa resides, the state law and constitutional amendment do not recognize any rights associated with same-sex marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships.
The Court was asked to review one of the rulings in the battle between Vermont and Virginia. Specifically, the Court was asked to review a Vermont Supreme Court decision that extended parental rights to Janet Jenkins over the objections of Lisa Miller, the fit, biological parent.
In deciding not to take the matter, the Court did not rule on the merits of the case. The case is still pending at the Vermont trial court, following the ruling by the Vermont Supreme Court. Once the trial court rules on visitation and custody, the case will go back to the Vermont Supreme Court and another petition will then be filed with the U.S. Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the High Court also has before it another petition of a ruling from the Virginia Court of Appeals. At the same time, the case is also currently pending before the Virginia Supreme Court.
Mathew D. Staver, the Founder of Liberty Counsel and the Dean of Liberty University School of Law, said: "The clash between Vermont and Virginia illustrates the need for protection, so that one state is not forced to accept same-sex unions from another state. This case will soon return to the High Court. Same-sex advocates are using children to further their agenda. The agenda is self-centered. That is sad, because children are not political fodder."
Another Attack on the Ten Commandments
American Center for Law & Justice
Jay Sekulow's Trial Notebook
After the victory at the Supreme Court of the United States in 2005 in the Texas Ten Commandments case, groups opposed to the public display of the monuments launched a new attack. When a majority of the Court ruled that the Fraternal Order of Eagles monument on display on the state capitol grounds in Texas was constitutional, a new and dangerous strategy was set forth by those that opposed the monument. These organizations mandated that they be allowed to place monuments in government areas that depicted various messages undercutting the significance of the Ten Commandments as a foundational document for western civilization. One group called Summum actually filed a series of lawsuits, demanding that they be able to erect its “Seven Aphorisms” in various town squares to counteract the display of the Ten Commandments. While some cities capitulated to Summum’s demand and either removed the Ten Commandments monuments (many which had been in place since the 1950s), others fought back.
We are representing Pleasant Grove City. The city has been sued by Summum, which is demanding that their monument be displayed alongside the Ten Commandments monument. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Summum, and we are now asking the entire Tenth Circuit to hear the case. Our brief will be filed with the court tomorrow. If you’d like to see a copy of our brief, just click here.
Ultimately, I believe this case might well end up at the Supreme Court of the United States. Summum’s argument, taken to its logical conclusion, would mean that the Statue of Liberty Park in New York Harbor would have to also display a monument called “Statue of Tyranny.” This seems outrageous, but this is the logical conclusion of the Tenth Circuit’s flawed reasoning. We will keep everyone posted on this case as it progresses.
Jay Sekulow's Trial Notebook
After the victory at the Supreme Court of the United States in 2005 in the Texas Ten Commandments case, groups opposed to the public display of the monuments launched a new attack. When a majority of the Court ruled that the Fraternal Order of Eagles monument on display on the state capitol grounds in Texas was constitutional, a new and dangerous strategy was set forth by those that opposed the monument. These organizations mandated that they be allowed to place monuments in government areas that depicted various messages undercutting the significance of the Ten Commandments as a foundational document for western civilization. One group called Summum actually filed a series of lawsuits, demanding that they be able to erect its “Seven Aphorisms” in various town squares to counteract the display of the Ten Commandments. While some cities capitulated to Summum’s demand and either removed the Ten Commandments monuments (many which had been in place since the 1950s), others fought back.
We are representing Pleasant Grove City. The city has been sued by Summum, which is demanding that their monument be displayed alongside the Ten Commandments monument. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Summum, and we are now asking the entire Tenth Circuit to hear the case. Our brief will be filed with the court tomorrow. If you’d like to see a copy of our brief, just click here.
Ultimately, I believe this case might well end up at the Supreme Court of the United States. Summum’s argument, taken to its logical conclusion, would mean that the Statue of Liberty Park in New York Harbor would have to also display a monument called “Statue of Tyranny.” This seems outrageous, but this is the logical conclusion of the Tenth Circuit’s flawed reasoning. We will keep everyone posted on this case as it progresses.
Turning to Churches or Scripture to Cope With Debt
The New York Times
By: John Leland
April 29, 2007
LOUISVILLE, Ky. — Doug Sweeney, a police officer, watched his credit card balance grow to $13,000, thinking he would never be able to pay it off. Renée Santiago had $40,000 in student loans. Susan Hancock owed $14,000 in credit card debt and could not point to anything in her home to show for it.
“I saw it going up,” Ms. Hancock said, “but I was numb. I thought, that’s just the way of life.”
When the debt got to be too much for them, instead of going to family members or financial professionals for help, they did what many Americans are doing: they turned to their church.
“You need a little help with motivation,” said Mr. Sweeney, 47, who blamed years of impulsive spending for his debt. Recently, he joined two dozen others at Southeast Christian Church for Week 9 of a 13-week debt-reduction program called Financial Peace University. Since joining the group, he had disposed of his credit cards.
“A big part of it is that it has a faith component,” he said. “God wants you to be good stewards of your money. The money’s all his.”
As Americans have run up nonmortgage debt of more than $2.4 trillion, churches and Christian radio stations are supplementing their spiritual counseling with financial counseling, often using programs developed by other Christian organizations and marketed in church circles or over the Internet. They offer a mix of basic budget planning, household cost-cutting and debt management, bolstered by Scripture and with tithing as a goal.
“We want to be relevant and to scratch people where they itch,” said Dave Stone, the senior pastor at Southeast, a nondenominational church that draws 18,000 worshipers each weekend. “For a church not to provide some service for people who are suffocating from too much debt would be burying our head in the sand.” Economists have recognized that the behavior of consumers often ignores their rational best interests. People overestimate their ability to repay loans, or spend more using credit cards than they would with cash. Church-based debt programs provide rules to force changes in spending and saving, then use Scripture to motivate people.
More than 39,000 churches have used debt reduction programs created by Crown Financial Ministries, a group in Gainesville, Ga. About 3,000 churches have bought a $250 Good Sense program developed by Willow Creek Community Church in Barrington, Ill. Both are nonprofit organizations.
“Nothing in the Bible says you can’t borrow,” said Mike Graham, who provides free financial counseling at Southeast Christian Church, in a position he created 10 years ago after stepping down as the church’s financial manager. “What you’re not allowed to do is borrow and not pay it back.”
The programs resemble secular plans, with two exceptions, said Dave Briggs, director of the Good Sense Stewardship Ministry at Willow Creek. “A secular adviser might say, it’s O.K. to stiff your creditors through bankruptcy,” Mr. Briggs said. “Biblically, bankruptcy is only an option if you need time and space to pay back what you owe.”
“The other conflict is in the area of giving,” he said. “We get a sense of devotion to God by being generous. Secular advice says, don’t give until you can afford it.”
The Financial Peace program, a curriculum marketed for profit by a radio host, Dave Ramsey, has been used in more than 10,000 churches, as well as 1,000 corporations and 350 military units or chapels, according to Mr. Ramsey’s representative.
More than 350,000 families have completed the program, at a cost of $80 to $90 each for books, audio CDs and other material, the representative said. Mr. Ramsey declined to answer questions about how much money is taken in by the company.
Stephen Brobeck, executive director of the nonprofit Consumer Federation of America, who reviewed the Financial Peace materials for The New York Times, said the advice was “fundamentally sound,” especially for people with low or middle incomes.
“It’s better than you get from a lot of financial advisers, who make it complicated and possibly subject consumers to avoidable credit risks,” Mr. Brobeck said.
Even tithing might help some Christians feel “empowered to pay back their debt faster, though the secular perspective would be that those funds could be used directly to pay down debt,” he said.
Click on the following link to read entire article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/us/29debt.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
By: John Leland
April 29, 2007
LOUISVILLE, Ky. — Doug Sweeney, a police officer, watched his credit card balance grow to $13,000, thinking he would never be able to pay it off. Renée Santiago had $40,000 in student loans. Susan Hancock owed $14,000 in credit card debt and could not point to anything in her home to show for it.
“I saw it going up,” Ms. Hancock said, “but I was numb. I thought, that’s just the way of life.”
When the debt got to be too much for them, instead of going to family members or financial professionals for help, they did what many Americans are doing: they turned to their church.
“You need a little help with motivation,” said Mr. Sweeney, 47, who blamed years of impulsive spending for his debt. Recently, he joined two dozen others at Southeast Christian Church for Week 9 of a 13-week debt-reduction program called Financial Peace University. Since joining the group, he had disposed of his credit cards.
“A big part of it is that it has a faith component,” he said. “God wants you to be good stewards of your money. The money’s all his.”
As Americans have run up nonmortgage debt of more than $2.4 trillion, churches and Christian radio stations are supplementing their spiritual counseling with financial counseling, often using programs developed by other Christian organizations and marketed in church circles or over the Internet. They offer a mix of basic budget planning, household cost-cutting and debt management, bolstered by Scripture and with tithing as a goal.
“We want to be relevant and to scratch people where they itch,” said Dave Stone, the senior pastor at Southeast, a nondenominational church that draws 18,000 worshipers each weekend. “For a church not to provide some service for people who are suffocating from too much debt would be burying our head in the sand.” Economists have recognized that the behavior of consumers often ignores their rational best interests. People overestimate their ability to repay loans, or spend more using credit cards than they would with cash. Church-based debt programs provide rules to force changes in spending and saving, then use Scripture to motivate people.
More than 39,000 churches have used debt reduction programs created by Crown Financial Ministries, a group in Gainesville, Ga. About 3,000 churches have bought a $250 Good Sense program developed by Willow Creek Community Church in Barrington, Ill. Both are nonprofit organizations.
“Nothing in the Bible says you can’t borrow,” said Mike Graham, who provides free financial counseling at Southeast Christian Church, in a position he created 10 years ago after stepping down as the church’s financial manager. “What you’re not allowed to do is borrow and not pay it back.”
The programs resemble secular plans, with two exceptions, said Dave Briggs, director of the Good Sense Stewardship Ministry at Willow Creek. “A secular adviser might say, it’s O.K. to stiff your creditors through bankruptcy,” Mr. Briggs said. “Biblically, bankruptcy is only an option if you need time and space to pay back what you owe.”
“The other conflict is in the area of giving,” he said. “We get a sense of devotion to God by being generous. Secular advice says, don’t give until you can afford it.”
The Financial Peace program, a curriculum marketed for profit by a radio host, Dave Ramsey, has been used in more than 10,000 churches, as well as 1,000 corporations and 350 military units or chapels, according to Mr. Ramsey’s representative.
More than 350,000 families have completed the program, at a cost of $80 to $90 each for books, audio CDs and other material, the representative said. Mr. Ramsey declined to answer questions about how much money is taken in by the company.
Stephen Brobeck, executive director of the nonprofit Consumer Federation of America, who reviewed the Financial Peace materials for The New York Times, said the advice was “fundamentally sound,” especially for people with low or middle incomes.
“It’s better than you get from a lot of financial advisers, who make it complicated and possibly subject consumers to avoidable credit risks,” Mr. Brobeck said.
Even tithing might help some Christians feel “empowered to pay back their debt faster, though the secular perspective would be that those funds could be used directly to pay down debt,” he said.
Click on the following link to read entire article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/us/29debt.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
University of Missouri Doctor Lectures on Design
Discovery Institute - Evolution News & Views
By: Logan Gage
It looks like CSC contributor Michael Egnor is not the only professor of medicine to stick his neck out for intelligent design and face severe personal attack. Dr. John Marshall of The University of Missouri–Columbia lectured this week on his own campus with the title "Intelligent Design: Is It Science or Religion?"
From both news and private reports, it sounds like he was verbally attacked in the Q&A session for his reasonable view that ID should be "part of the scientific discussion." According to one news report:
"Rather than convince detractors that intelligent design was truth, Marshall repeatedly said he wanted the theory to become part of the scientific discussion, asking scientists to have tolerance toward his view."
One attendee told me he was astounded by the level of immaturity and name-calling from professors hostile to Dr. Marshall's position.
Earlier on April 6th Dr. Marshall debated chemistry professor Kenneth Schmitz at The University of Missouri–Kansas City as to whether or not ID is science.
Though he was mostly calling for civil dialogue and open discussion, Dr. Marshall said that "as a theory, I believe that intelligent design fits the evidence of biology better than Darwinian evolution." As his example shows, this is a tough claim to make in today's univeristy environment.
By: Logan Gage
It looks like CSC contributor Michael Egnor is not the only professor of medicine to stick his neck out for intelligent design and face severe personal attack. Dr. John Marshall of The University of Missouri–Columbia lectured this week on his own campus with the title "Intelligent Design: Is It Science or Religion?"
From both news and private reports, it sounds like he was verbally attacked in the Q&A session for his reasonable view that ID should be "part of the scientific discussion." According to one news report:
"Rather than convince detractors that intelligent design was truth, Marshall repeatedly said he wanted the theory to become part of the scientific discussion, asking scientists to have tolerance toward his view."
One attendee told me he was astounded by the level of immaturity and name-calling from professors hostile to Dr. Marshall's position.
Earlier on April 6th Dr. Marshall debated chemistry professor Kenneth Schmitz at The University of Missouri–Kansas City as to whether or not ID is science.
Though he was mostly calling for civil dialogue and open discussion, Dr. Marshall said that "as a theory, I believe that intelligent design fits the evidence of biology better than Darwinian evolution." As his example shows, this is a tough claim to make in today's univeristy environment.
In Indiana, a fight over 'In God We Trust' license plates
In Indiana, the extra fee for specialty tags doesn't apply to one that invokes the divine. Critics go to court.
Los Angeles Times
By P.J. Huffstutter, Times Staff Writer
FORT WAYNE, IND. — When Mark Studler was renewing his specialty license plate recently, which touts his support of environmental issues, he expected to pay the annual premium of $40 to the state.
After all, he wanted to express his love of the great outdoors every time he hit the highways — and liked that $25 of the fee was donated to the Indiana Heritage Trust, a state conservation group.
But he objected to a new license plate that he felt also qualified as a specialty plate — one with the motto "In God We Trust" — but didn't require a premium. Not even the $15 extra fee that usually goes to the state for administrative costs.
"I don't have any problem with people expressing their religious beliefs, whether it's on a bumper sticker or their license plate," said Studler, 49, a construction worker. "But folks should be treated in the same way — and charged the same fees by the state — as Hoosiers who prefer that their custom tags promote education or the environment."
Last week, the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed a lawsuit, on behalf of Studler, in state court against the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles and Commissioner Ronald L. Stiver. The complaint challenges a law that lets motorists get the "In God We Trust" design without paying the $15 administrative fee.
The state says the new "In God We Trust" plate is not a specialty plate — like dozens of others it offers — but rather a second "standard" plate, like the one that features a pastoral scene, and is thus not subject to special fees.
State officials say the plate, introduced in January, has been a hit, chosen by more than 540,000 motorists. That means that had the state charged the $15 fee, it would have an additional $8 million in its coffers.
"The issue isn't the message. It's not about religion," said Ken Falk, legal director for the ACLU of Indiana, which filed the suit in Marion Superior Court on Monday.
"It's about making sure that nearly every other plate that carries a message has a cost attached to it, and this does not," Falk said. "In a state that's as religious as Indiana, the phrase 'In God We Trust' is not just about supporting the national motto. It's about saying you believe in God."
BMV chief Stiver countered in a statement: "The Indiana BMV follows established laws and makes sure they are implemented properly and fairly…. [T]he BMV simply does not promote any plate design over another. There are dozens of options, and a substantial number of customers have simply elected to place this particular plate on their vehicles."
The design of the new plate is simple: An American flag stretches across the bottom of a deep-blue background, with the motto printed on the left.
All plates issued by the state start at $20.75 for registration and go up from there based on vehicle type, taxes and other fees.
The state issued nearly 5 million standard license plates for trucks and cars last year, according to the BMV. About 7% were issued as specialty plates.
The more than 75 specialty plates the state offers at a premium allow drivers to support causes and interests such as arts groups, breast cancer research and the Indianapolis Colts. The premiums cover the donation to the sponsoring organization plus the administration fee, which includes funding for roads and other state projects.
On Friday, the line of residents waiting to renew their driver's licenses and get plates wound outside the BMV office on the southern edge of Fort Wayne.
As Andrea Gordon slowly made her way toward the door, she passed by a wall covered in fliers vying for her registration dollars.
"Share the Hope!" pitched one offering a plate for breast cancer awareness. "Another Sunset Saved" wooed a second, pitching a pro-environmental plate.
"Step up to the plate! Support statewide efforts to prevent child abuse and neglect by purchasing a Kids First license plate," offered a third pamphlet.
"You know, I just like the idea of going with one that talks about God," said Gordon, 42, who works at a laundry. "Besides, it's cheaper and that's what really sells me on it."
Advocates of having "In God We Trust" on a standard plate say the legal fight is ludicrous.
Click the following link to read entire article: http://www.latimes.com/features/religion/la-na-plates29apr29,0,2805637.story?track=mostviewed-homepage
Los Angeles Times
By P.J. Huffstutter, Times Staff Writer
FORT WAYNE, IND. — When Mark Studler was renewing his specialty license plate recently, which touts his support of environmental issues, he expected to pay the annual premium of $40 to the state.
After all, he wanted to express his love of the great outdoors every time he hit the highways — and liked that $25 of the fee was donated to the Indiana Heritage Trust, a state conservation group.
But he objected to a new license plate that he felt also qualified as a specialty plate — one with the motto "In God We Trust" — but didn't require a premium. Not even the $15 extra fee that usually goes to the state for administrative costs.
"I don't have any problem with people expressing their religious beliefs, whether it's on a bumper sticker or their license plate," said Studler, 49, a construction worker. "But folks should be treated in the same way — and charged the same fees by the state — as Hoosiers who prefer that their custom tags promote education or the environment."
Last week, the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed a lawsuit, on behalf of Studler, in state court against the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles and Commissioner Ronald L. Stiver. The complaint challenges a law that lets motorists get the "In God We Trust" design without paying the $15 administrative fee.
The state says the new "In God We Trust" plate is not a specialty plate — like dozens of others it offers — but rather a second "standard" plate, like the one that features a pastoral scene, and is thus not subject to special fees.
State officials say the plate, introduced in January, has been a hit, chosen by more than 540,000 motorists. That means that had the state charged the $15 fee, it would have an additional $8 million in its coffers.
"The issue isn't the message. It's not about religion," said Ken Falk, legal director for the ACLU of Indiana, which filed the suit in Marion Superior Court on Monday.
"It's about making sure that nearly every other plate that carries a message has a cost attached to it, and this does not," Falk said. "In a state that's as religious as Indiana, the phrase 'In God We Trust' is not just about supporting the national motto. It's about saying you believe in God."
BMV chief Stiver countered in a statement: "The Indiana BMV follows established laws and makes sure they are implemented properly and fairly…. [T]he BMV simply does not promote any plate design over another. There are dozens of options, and a substantial number of customers have simply elected to place this particular plate on their vehicles."
The design of the new plate is simple: An American flag stretches across the bottom of a deep-blue background, with the motto printed on the left.
All plates issued by the state start at $20.75 for registration and go up from there based on vehicle type, taxes and other fees.
The state issued nearly 5 million standard license plates for trucks and cars last year, according to the BMV. About 7% were issued as specialty plates.
The more than 75 specialty plates the state offers at a premium allow drivers to support causes and interests such as arts groups, breast cancer research and the Indianapolis Colts. The premiums cover the donation to the sponsoring organization plus the administration fee, which includes funding for roads and other state projects.
On Friday, the line of residents waiting to renew their driver's licenses and get plates wound outside the BMV office on the southern edge of Fort Wayne.
As Andrea Gordon slowly made her way toward the door, she passed by a wall covered in fliers vying for her registration dollars.
"Share the Hope!" pitched one offering a plate for breast cancer awareness. "Another Sunset Saved" wooed a second, pitching a pro-environmental plate.
"Step up to the plate! Support statewide efforts to prevent child abuse and neglect by purchasing a Kids First license plate," offered a third pamphlet.
"You know, I just like the idea of going with one that talks about God," said Gordon, 42, who works at a laundry. "Besides, it's cheaper and that's what really sells me on it."
Advocates of having "In God We Trust" on a standard plate say the legal fight is ludicrous.
Click the following link to read entire article: http://www.latimes.com/features/religion/la-na-plates29apr29,0,2805637.story?track=mostviewed-homepage
Friday, April 27, 2007
Ford gives another $10,000 to support homosexual marriage!
Unyielding support for same-sex marriage grows with multiple hand-outs
American Family Association
The Ford Motor Company has again financially expressed its support for homosexual activism by donating another $10,000 to help efforts to legalize same-sex marriage. Ford has signed on as a major sponsor of the 2007 PFLAG (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) National Convention.
According to PFLAG’s own website, “PFLAG…supports revision of federal and state statutes to extend to persons in same-gender committed relationships the right to marry with the full legal rights and benefits.”
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Ford continues to ignore the plea of hundreds of thousands of Ford customers to stop supporting homosexual activist groups:
Ford carried a full page ad in the nation’s top homosexual magazines, The Advocate (April 24 issue) and Out (May 2007 issue).
Ford supports homosexuality not only in the U.S., but worldwide. Ford is listed as a main sponsor of the 2007 London Gay Pride Parade and Festival in England.
Ford’s Board of Directors, under Chairman Bill Ford, is unanimously urging shareholders to vote against a proposal to remove sexual orientation from its corporate policies. The vote will be held during its annual meeting on May 10.
Although Ford has suffered massive losses in seven consecutive business quarters, it persists in alienating its core customers with bad business decisions.
Please click the following link to take action: http://www.afa.net/ford042707.htm
Southern Twang?
by: Kingdom Capital
Does anyone else out there find Hillary Clinton's fake southern twang really annoying these days? When I hear her speak like that it is embarassing to me. I don't think she knows how ridiculous she sounds. However, I do know how ridiculous it will be if she makes it to the White House! She may be able to fake a southern accent but she will not be able to fake running this country....
Does anyone else out there find Hillary Clinton's fake southern twang really annoying these days? When I hear her speak like that it is embarassing to me. I don't think she knows how ridiculous she sounds. However, I do know how ridiculous it will be if she makes it to the White House! She may be able to fake a southern accent but she will not be able to fake running this country....
S.F. publisher bets on Christian fiction
As blockbuster 'Left Behind' series ends, industry looks for next big inspirational hit
Heidi Benson - sfgate.com
For HarperSanFrancisco, a publisher of religious and spiritual books, the time has come to capitalize on the market for Christian fiction revealed by the success of the "Left Behind" series of evangelical novels.
Since 1995, those apocalyptic thrillers, based on the Book of Revelation and written by Jerry B. Jenkins and influential Christian-right leader Tim LaHaye, have sold more than 50 million copies. When sales figures come in for the just-published last book in the 16-part series, "Kingdom Come" -- in which satanic forces are vanquished and heaven is established on Earth -- that number is only expected to grow.
"It has been a wake-up call for a lot of retail channels. They realized that money could be made," said Mickey Maudlin, HarperSanFrancisco's editorial director. "Some of the major chains said, 'Hey, these sell really well for us, and the only people doing them are the smaller Christian publishers.' "
Click the following link for entire article: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/04/23/MNGEQPDM0J1.DTL
Heidi Benson - sfgate.com
For HarperSanFrancisco, a publisher of religious and spiritual books, the time has come to capitalize on the market for Christian fiction revealed by the success of the "Left Behind" series of evangelical novels.
Since 1995, those apocalyptic thrillers, based on the Book of Revelation and written by Jerry B. Jenkins and influential Christian-right leader Tim LaHaye, have sold more than 50 million copies. When sales figures come in for the just-published last book in the 16-part series, "Kingdom Come" -- in which satanic forces are vanquished and heaven is established on Earth -- that number is only expected to grow.
"It has been a wake-up call for a lot of retail channels. They realized that money could be made," said Mickey Maudlin, HarperSanFrancisco's editorial director. "Some of the major chains said, 'Hey, these sell really well for us, and the only people doing them are the smaller Christian publishers.' "
Click the following link for entire article: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/04/23/MNGEQPDM0J1.DTL
ACLJ Preparing Supreme Court Brief to Protect Kids from Internet Porn
Jay Sekulow - ACLJ
I can’t often say “I’m furious,” but I am using this phrase very bluntly today. When someone endangers our children and grandchildren, when someone uses children for perverse sexual pleasure, and when a court allows such a travesty, I think anger is the appropriate response. Anger -- and action. Let me tell you what’s happening:
Our ACLJ team wrote The Protect Act to keep children from being victimized by the multi-million-dollar Internet pornography industry. The Protect Act prohibits anyone from distributing or soliciting any online images, photos, or messages which would be perceived as actual or obscene child pornography. Congress passed this constitutionally sound piece of legislation into law to protect America’s children.
Then a U.S. Court of Appeals declared The Protect Act unconstitutional. They misconstrued the law and relied on unusual and hypothetical reasoning, and they are wrong!
The good news is that the Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear this case, and to consider restoring The Protect Act to its rightful place among our nation’s laws. This means we are gearing up to return to the Supreme Court to help vigorously defend The Protect Act and our nation’s children. Without The Protect Act, our children and grandchildren are seriously at risk.
The attack on this legislation originally came from a man in Florida who was convicted of possessing and pandering child pornography depicting his own baby daughter. He is serving concurrent five-year prison terms on each charge; but he appealed his online pandering conviction, claiming that The Protect Act is “overly broad” and in violation of his constitutional rights.
Now the ACLU is supporting this convicted child pornographer—which means their big budget and extensive cadre of lawyers will be arrayed against us. This case is going to take significant amounts of research, a tremendous toll in staff hours, and a concentrated application of legal expertise. But we are willing and able to fight child porn, which is running rampant on the Internet.
Click the following link to read entire article: http://www.aclj.org/TrialNotebook/Read.aspx?id=475
I can’t often say “I’m furious,” but I am using this phrase very bluntly today. When someone endangers our children and grandchildren, when someone uses children for perverse sexual pleasure, and when a court allows such a travesty, I think anger is the appropriate response. Anger -- and action. Let me tell you what’s happening:
Our ACLJ team wrote The Protect Act to keep children from being victimized by the multi-million-dollar Internet pornography industry. The Protect Act prohibits anyone from distributing or soliciting any online images, photos, or messages which would be perceived as actual or obscene child pornography. Congress passed this constitutionally sound piece of legislation into law to protect America’s children.
Then a U.S. Court of Appeals declared The Protect Act unconstitutional. They misconstrued the law and relied on unusual and hypothetical reasoning, and they are wrong!
The good news is that the Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear this case, and to consider restoring The Protect Act to its rightful place among our nation’s laws. This means we are gearing up to return to the Supreme Court to help vigorously defend The Protect Act and our nation’s children. Without The Protect Act, our children and grandchildren are seriously at risk.
The attack on this legislation originally came from a man in Florida who was convicted of possessing and pandering child pornography depicting his own baby daughter. He is serving concurrent five-year prison terms on each charge; but he appealed his online pandering conviction, claiming that The Protect Act is “overly broad” and in violation of his constitutional rights.
Now the ACLU is supporting this convicted child pornographer—which means their big budget and extensive cadre of lawyers will be arrayed against us. This case is going to take significant amounts of research, a tremendous toll in staff hours, and a concentrated application of legal expertise. But we are willing and able to fight child porn, which is running rampant on the Internet.
Click the following link to read entire article: http://www.aclj.org/TrialNotebook/Read.aspx?id=475
Thursday, April 26, 2007
A Moment of Clarity: Darwinists Plan to Recruit “People Who Do Not Care About Science”
Discovery Institute - Evolution News & Views
Every once in a while, in an epochal public debate, there’s a moment of clarity. Darwinism’s most recent moment of clarity came a short time ago, when prominent Darwinist and scientist Mike Dunford released the strategy developed by his colleagues in a policy forum piece published in the latest issue of the journal Science. The strategy is remarkable.
Dunford notes the emerging Darwinian strategy:
"I think Matt [Nisbet] and Chris [Mooney] are right. We do need to spend more time (and thought) on communicating our views effectively, particularly to people who do not care about science."
In their article "Framing Science," Darwinists Chris Mooney and Matt Nisbet discuss the options for Darwinists facing an uphill battle against Intelligent Design scientists in the public forum. They note that the public doesn’t "get it" that Darwin’s theory is beyond reproach, and they agree that what’s needed is a new "framing" strategy, championed by political consultant George Lakoff.
Matt [Nisbet] and Chris [Mooney] suggest that we use a technique that they call "framing." This consists of emphasizing the parts of the message that relate to the things that the audience cares about…As long as the people we need to reach are uninterested in the science involved in the issue, we're going to need to find other ways to get them interested in the issue itself.
Click the following link for full article: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/04/a_moment_of_clarity_darwinists.html
Every once in a while, in an epochal public debate, there’s a moment of clarity. Darwinism’s most recent moment of clarity came a short time ago, when prominent Darwinist and scientist Mike Dunford released the strategy developed by his colleagues in a policy forum piece published in the latest issue of the journal Science. The strategy is remarkable.
Dunford notes the emerging Darwinian strategy:
"I think Matt [Nisbet] and Chris [Mooney] are right. We do need to spend more time (and thought) on communicating our views effectively, particularly to people who do not care about science."
In their article "Framing Science," Darwinists Chris Mooney and Matt Nisbet discuss the options for Darwinists facing an uphill battle against Intelligent Design scientists in the public forum. They note that the public doesn’t "get it" that Darwin’s theory is beyond reproach, and they agree that what’s needed is a new "framing" strategy, championed by political consultant George Lakoff.
Matt [Nisbet] and Chris [Mooney] suggest that we use a technique that they call "framing." This consists of emphasizing the parts of the message that relate to the things that the audience cares about…As long as the people we need to reach are uninterested in the science involved in the issue, we're going to need to find other ways to get them interested in the issue itself.
Click the following link for full article: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/04/a_moment_of_clarity_darwinists.html
Christians in bull's-eye in new 'hate crimes' plan
By Bob Unruh© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
A fast-tracked congressional plan to add special protections for homosexuals to federal law would turn "thoughts, feelings, and beliefs" into criminal offenses and put Christians in the bull's-eye, according to opponents.
"H.R. 1592 is a discriminatory measure that criminalizes thoughts, feelings, and beliefs [and] has the potential of interfering with religious liberty and freedom of speech," according to a white paper submitted by Glen Lavy, of the Alliance Defense Fund.
"As James Jacobs and Kimberly Potter observed in Hate Crimes, Criminal Law, and Identity Politics, 'It would appear that the only additional purpose [for enhancing punishment of bias crimes] is to provide extra punishment based on the offender's politically incorrect opinions and viewpoints,'" said Lavy.
The proposal has been endorsed by majority Democrats on the committee, and already has 137 sponsors in the full House, making it possible it could be voted on in a matter of days or weeks.
Click the following link for full article: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55392
A fast-tracked congressional plan to add special protections for homosexuals to federal law would turn "thoughts, feelings, and beliefs" into criminal offenses and put Christians in the bull's-eye, according to opponents.
"H.R. 1592 is a discriminatory measure that criminalizes thoughts, feelings, and beliefs [and] has the potential of interfering with religious liberty and freedom of speech," according to a white paper submitted by Glen Lavy, of the Alliance Defense Fund.
"As James Jacobs and Kimberly Potter observed in Hate Crimes, Criminal Law, and Identity Politics, 'It would appear that the only additional purpose [for enhancing punishment of bias crimes] is to provide extra punishment based on the offender's politically incorrect opinions and viewpoints,'" said Lavy.
The proposal has been endorsed by majority Democrats on the committee, and already has 137 sponsors in the full House, making it possible it could be voted on in a matter of days or weeks.
Click the following link for full article: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55392
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)