Archive for November 14th, 2005

Michael Newdow Pushes for Separation of Church and Money

Monday, November 14th, 2005

You all remember Michael Newdow. He’s the California attorney, physician, and atheist who sued Congress on the grounds that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because it contains the words “under God.” Fortunately, while the 9th Circus Court of Appeals sided with Newdow, the U.S. Supreme Court found he lacked standing to bring the suit. Newdow has also sued President Bush because Franklin Graham gave the invocation at Bush’s inaugeration in Jesus’ name. In his zeal to push through a godless agenda, Newdow has made himself one of America’s most hated persons. Now, Newdow pushes further. Irked that our currency features our national motto (In God We Trust), Newdow is suing over the motto. Jennifer Rast has the ridiculous details over at the Scriptorium blog.

LA Times Hires Porn Reporter

Monday, November 14th, 2005

As if there weren’t already enough reasons to cancel your subscription to the Los Angeles Times, the paper has added another reason. It seems that since pornography is a big money industry and legal entertainment (in certain cases, anyway), the LA Times has seen fit to mainstream it more and has assigned a reporter to cover the porn industry. This is not a reporter that will expose the seamy underbelly of pornography. Rather, it will be like any other entertainment reporter. Yes, that’s right. The LA Times has decided to treat porn as mainstream entertainment. Never mind the fact that pornography damages women, destroys relationships, and serves as a gateway to rape and child molestation. Sin is in – at least at the L.A. Times.

The director of research for the American Family Association says the recent addition of a pornography reporter to the staff at the Los Angeles Times shows how mainstream pornography has become. Last spring, Ralph Frammolino began regularly covering the pornography industry for the newspaper. He says the porn trade is too big an economic engine to be ignored.

According to Frammolino, the addition of the multi-billion-dollar porn trade as a news topic is thanks to the LA Times’ new editor-in-chief, John Carroll. Frammolino says since Carroll came on board, the Times has “vamped up” its entertainment coverage; and since so-called “adult entertainment” is big business — and legal — the paper is “going to cover it that way.”

But according to Ed Vitagliano of the American Family Association, the decision to put a reporter on the porn beat is not a surprising move from the liberal Los Angeles paper but is simply a sign of an overly sexualized contemporary culture.

“It would be the obvious next step,” he says, “especially in a state like California, which is known for being culturally as blue a state as you can find, for pornography just to be considered another part of the entertainment menu.”

Jesus had something to say on the matter, “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28, NIV).

Parents Petition for 9th Circuit COA En Banc Review

Monday, November 14th, 2005

After a three judge panel of the 9th Circus (typo intentional) Court of Appeals ruled that parents have no exclusive right to the sex education of their children, the parents have petitioned the COA for an en banc review (“en banc” is Latin for getting all the nutty judges together to review the decision of the three judge panel). Experience gives us little hope that the en banc review will result in a different decision, but we can always hope and pray. This will likely be headed for a Supreme Court showdown.

Seven California parents are asking the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to re-hear a case involving parental rights in public schools.

In Fields v. Palmdale School District, a three-judge panel ruled that parental rights to direct a child’s upbringing stop at the school’s front door. Parents had objected to a survey administered to young students (first-, third-, and fifth-graders) which asked sexually explicit questions — without the parents knowledge or consent. Several parents filed a lawsuit against the school district. But Judge Steven Reinhardt, writing for the Ninth Circuit panel, stated: “We hold there is no free-standing fundamental right of parents ‘to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex in accordance with their personal and religious values and beliefs ….'”

It was not surprising that pro-family groups were incensed by the ruling. Labeling first the school district’s actions as “deceptive,” legal advocates for family groups described the panel’s ruling “deeply troubling,” “unthinkable,” and an “egregious example of judicial tyranny.” Mat Staver is president and general counsel of Liberty Counsel, which represents the seven parents asking for a re-hearing. Staver says the ruling should be set aside.

“Most Americans would be shocked to learn that this court has said that parental rights stop at the threshold of the school door,” he says, “that when they drop their children off at school, they lose their parental authority.”

And the court, he says, has essentially told parents they have only one choice: to put their children in public school or not — “and once they make that choice,” he adds, “they have lost their parental authority during the school hours.”

This case is extremely important. Many schools use SIECUS sex education curriculum, which not only advocates homosexuality, bisexuality, and pornography as perfectly normal and healthy, but also encourages students to reject the values of their parents when they conflict with the SIECUS viewpoints. It is imperative that Christian parents be able to opt their children out of this kind of objectionable material.

PBS Ignored Facts in Anti-Fatherhood Documentary

Monday, November 14th, 2005

It’s no secret that PBS has long used taxpayer dollars to push an agenda that is liberal and, quite often, anti-biblical. In a recent documentary, PBS sided with their agenda over facts, and it may well come back to bite them in the backside.

The controversial PBS film Breaking the Silence: Children’s Stories features mothers who have purportedly lost custody of their children in divorce to physically abusive husbands. However, it has been revealed that one of the moms featured in the film has a rap sheet for child abuse.

Los Angeles-based newspaper columnist Glenn Sacks has uncovered documents showing PBS chose to ignore the fact that, in 1998, a California court found Sadia Loeliger guilty of eight counts of child abuse. In Breaking the Silence, she is portrayed as the victim of anti-mother bias in family courts. According to Sacks, PBS ignored facts available about the mom and her 16-year-old daughter, as well as a request from the girl’s father she not be included in the film.

“The father in the case, Dr. Scott Loeliger, had been writing [to PBS] starting back in April, telling them that the mother had this history of abuse, offering to show them the documents, and asking that his daughter not be made a part of this film,” Sacks explains.

The documents show that Sadia Loeliger’s children were frightened for their lives because of her abuse. However, PBS was pushing an agenda in this documentary that women were victimized by the court system when it came to custodial disputes. They had been notified in advance of Mrs. Loeliger’s convictions for child abuse, but intentionally ignored them. It sounds like PBS may have to pull a CBS (remember memogate?) when all is said and done here.

Verse of the Day

Monday, November 14th, 2005

“For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit,”
1 Peter 3:18

Today’s passage is from the New International Version.

Courtesy of BibleGateway.Com