Archive for June 6th, 2006

Senator Ted Kennedy: “A vote for this (marriage) amendment is a vote for bigotry pure and simple.”

Tuesday, June 6th, 2006

This is the line the homosexual activist have been trying to shove down our throats for years. Now they have Senator Kennedy on board for it. No surprise there. Well Mr. Kennedy, a vote against this amendment is a vote against families and values.
By the way, just what does a Kennedy know about marriage anyway?

WASHINGTON, June 6, 2006 ( - The U.S. Senate will vote this week on the Marriage Protection Amendment, a bill which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. Senator Edward M. Kennedy was quoted today as saying, ‘A vote for this amendment is a vote for bigotry pure and simple.”
Kennedy, who claims to be Catholic while opposing the Church on every major tenet of morality, was blasted by Catholic League president Bill Donohue.
“A vote for the Marriage Protection Amendment is a vote to maintain the traditional understanding of marriage as it has been accepted for thousands of years all over the world,” said Donohue. “To brand those who support this amendment as bigots is mud-slinging: it is analogous to those who would call foes of the amendment ‘gay lovers.’”
Donohue recalled that in 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act which denies federal recognition to same-sex marriages and allows states the right to deny recognition of gay marriages that have been performed in other states. “Only 14 senators voted against this bill, and Senator Kennedy was one of them,” Donohue pointed out. “Thus, his proclaimed opposition to gay marriage is nothing but an empty gesture: he refuses to do anything that would protect the institution of marriage from legislative or judicial tinkering.”
Donohue also noted the public support for the measure. “In the last election, all 11 states that had same-sex marriage on the ballot voted against it, including states with a ‘progressive’ reputation like Oregon,” he said. “Moreover, more than 80 percent of the states have passed Defense of Marriage Acts.”
Donohue reminded Kennedy the “Catholic” that “the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is in favor of a constitutional amendment.” He also noted that “Black ministers, like Bishop Harry Jackson of the High Impact Leadership Coalition, have rallied in favor of the amendment. Even in New York City, surveys show the people don’t want same-sex marriage.”
Concluding Donohue asked, “Are all these people bigots, Mr. Kennedy?” Answering the rhetorical question with: “Reasonable people may disagree whether a constitutional amendment is the right remedy, but only fanatics will call those who support it bigots.”

Original Article.

Judge Rules Christian Prison Program Unconstitutional; Appeal Planned

Tuesday, June 6th, 2006

“The courts took God our of America’s schools –
now they are on the path to take God out of America’s prisons.”
– Mark Earley, Prison Fellowship President

Another Quote:
“The expenses of the paperwork and court fees involved in pursuing the appeal through the courts were not too high. In fact, as I recall, removing prayer from U.S. public schools cost less than $20,000…no Christian organization filed a brief in support of our opponents (Baltimore Board of Education).” (Bill Murray. Son of Madalyn Murray O’Hair. My Life Without God . 1982.)

Are we Christians going to sit on our hands again and let this happen??

(AgapePress) - Evidently it matters not that a well-known and highly successful prison ministry believes one of its premier programs is constitutional and well within the guidelines of the First Amendment, or that statistics bear out the effectiveness of the program. A federal judge has ruled the program is unconstitutional — and now the program that equips prisoners to successfully re-enter society is in jeopardy.
A federal judge has ruled that an Iowa prison program that involves inmates immersing themselves in evangelical Christianity is unconstitutional and must be shut down. Associated Press reports that Judge Robert Pratt, in a ruling expected to have national implications, said Prison Fellowship’s InnerChange Freedom Initiative amounts to a government establishment of religion.
Pratt ruled that the Iowa Department of Corrections must close the program within 60 days and that $1.5 million in contract payments must be returned to state officials, but he suspended those orders while an appeal is pending.
Prison Fellowship, which sponsors similar programs in Texas, Minnesota, Kansas and Arkansas, argued that the Iowa program is voluntary and has secular benefits. The ministry claims the program has produced “dramatic results” in the lives of hardened criminals and has been effective in stopping what it describes as “the revolving door of crime.”
If Judge Pratt’s ruling is allowed to stand, says Prison Fellowship president Mark Earley, it will “enshrine” religious discrimination. The ruling, he states, “has attacked the right of people of faith to operate on a level playing field in the public arena and to provide services to those who volunteered to receive them.”
In addition, observes Earley, the federal judge’s decision fosters what the ministry leader describes as a “lock ‘em up and throw away the key” approach to fighting crime.
“It assumes by warehousing criminals and providing no services to help them change, that society will be safer when they get out,” he says. “Nothing could be further from the truth.” Prison Fellowship says it plans to appeal the ruling to the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and that it believes the case will eventually make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
It was more than three years ago — February 2003 — that the group Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed a lawsuit against the InnerChange Freedom Initiative in Iowa, alleging that it represented an excessive entanglement between state and religion.

Original Article.
See my article on what the U.S. Constitution actually says about religion.
Read some other interesting quotes.

Author: Despite NOW, Many Women Opting for Stay-at-Home Parenting

Tuesday, June 6th, 2006

My wife is a Stay-at-Home parent and I admire her very much for this. Anyone who looks down on women who decide to be stay-at-home moms is really out of touch with what is important in life. Like most people, we live from pay-check to pay-check and it is hard in today’s society to make ends meet on one income. But the good she is doing for our kids is so important, and knowing that she is there for them and raising them, instead of some stranger, gives me great peace. My wife is doing a much more important job than anything I do. I’d put her up against the most successful corporate CEO any day.
I hope the trend of stay-at-home parenting continues. I believe that a lot of society’s problems are due to not having parents more “plugged in” to their children’s lives. This pursuit of “things” has really caused problems, in my opinion. Everyone likes to have “things”, the latest and greatest of this and that, but think about what it is really costing…it may be costing us our kid’s futures.

(AgapePress) - Author and stay-at-home mom Suzanne Venker says the leaders of the National Organization for Women, or NOW, are out of touch with real women of today.
Elizabeth Vargas, co-anchor of ABC’s “World News Tonight,” recently announced she is leaving the program because of her pregnancy and her desire to spend more time with her other child. However, NOW president Kim Gandy finds the situation suspicious and is positing the possibility of network discrimination against Vargas.
Gandy wrote an article on the NOW website decrying Vargas’ departure and suggesting that the ABC anchorwoman was dumped, not unlike the ABC show “Commander in Chief,” for presenting viewers with a strong female image.
The head of NOW says it seems unlikely that Vargas, “having survived and thrived through her first pregnancy … would logically give up the top job in TV a few months out, anticipating she couldn’t handle it.” And since the newswoman’s decision to leave her prime “World News Tonight” position to spend time with her children seems illogical to Gandy, the women’s organization president says she smells a rat.
But Suzanne Venker, author of 7 Myths of Working Mothers (Spence Publishing, 2004), thinks that response has a rather suspicious odor all its own. She says NOW is an organization whose leaders are bent on playing the discrimination card even where none exists.
“And every time a woman today makes any choice that is not what they would want her to make,” Venker adds, “that is, to stay in the workforce full time, regardless of your situation with your children — then there must be a ‘rat’ defined, because, [as NOW sees it,] you couldn’t possibly have chosen this.”
Gandy and NOW seem to think every woman who wants a family can and should be a career-oriented mom who hands her children off to daycare, the author says. But today, she asserts, it is a growing trend that more women are realizing they cannot do it all, maintaining a fabulous career while managing a home and raising perfect children.
“If the world functioned differently, and if we had our system set up in such a way that allowed women to succeed at both of these pursuits, both motherhood and career simultaneously, then women wouldn’t have to make these choices,” Venker says.
“But, of course,” the stay-at-home parent continues, “women are voluntarily making the ‘choice’ — to use the term we use today — to opt out in order to be with their children.” And that fact is going to upset the feminists of NOW and groups like it, she adds, “because that defies their entire agenda.”
Gandy and the National Organization for Women need to catch up with the times, Venker insists. She says more women are recognizing motherhood as the full-time job it is rather than something they can do on the side, and those who choose to be stay-at-home moms should be supported and commended for their decision.

Original Article.

copyright © 2006 Jesus is Lord, A Worshipping Christian Family, All Rights Reserved