Archive for October 24th, 2006

Pagan Student Club at University of WI – Waukesha

Tuesday, October 24th, 2006

Pagan student club? What is up with that? I’d be interested to hear their club motto. Satan is alive and well and he is working in Wisconsin.

A Pagan Student Alliance club has been organized at the University of Wisconsin-Waukesha as Halloween approaches.

It was officially recognized by the student government about two weeks ago and its approximately one dozen members hope to promote understanding of paganism through public information efforts and demonstrations.

“We’re coming out of the broom closet,” said Amber Braun, 20, of Waukesha, who is president of the group.

“We’re not trying to preach, and we’re not trying to convert,” she said.

Braun, who describes herself as a witch, said she plans to request about $1,500 in student fee funding.

David Weber, faculty adviser to the Campus Crusade for Christ, said that, although he disagrees with pagan philosophy, he has no objection to having the new club on campus.

“Hopefully we’re always searching for truth,” he said. “Sometimes people have their own way of finding the truth.”

Sue Kalinka, the school’s associate director of student services, said the formation of the club was an opportunity for students to be exposed to new ideas.

Student government president Alan Stager said he instructed club leaders to notify him if they experience hostility or discrimination on campus.

“Abolish the ignorance,” Stager said.
.

Original Link

Christian Band Causes Stir on Campus at UTM

Tuesday, October 24th, 2006

Our college campuses have become so infiltrated with God-haters that even the smallest hint of Christianity will be protested.

The past few weeks have seen controversy erupt over UTM’s booking of the band Sonicflood, which played last night in the Student Life Center.

The band played songs from their new CD, This Generation, which their Web site says is a “call to this generation … to be what we’re made to be: worshippers of God.”

The controversy started when Adam Francis, a senior philosophy major, started the Facebook group: “Why is UTM using my money to book a Christian band?”

Francis said he did not get interested in the concert until he noticed that the Student Activities Council was sponsoring the event.

“I got onto their (Sonicflood’s) Web site and found that one of their beliefs is that ‘Jesus Christ is God’s only provision for salvation and all people without personal faith in him are lost and will spend eternity in hell.’ That’s not the kind of thing I want my student activities fee being spent on,” Francis said.

Francis went on to question the constitutionality of the move to sponsor the event. SAC, which collects a mandatory per semester fee from all students, spent $10,000 to bring Sonicflood to UTM.

The leadership of SAC defended their decision to have the group play citing that they have brought in groups, musical acts and other forms of entertainment without preference to religious preference or ideology.

Original Link

He Lives!!

Tuesday, October 24th, 2006

1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. 2 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3 and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?”

4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’ “

Mark 16:1-7 (New American Standard Bible)

“His has risen!”
This is possibly the most important statement to a Christian. In these three words, we see the culmination of the plan of salvation thousands of years in the making.
In these words, we have the summation of Jesus’ victory over death, and since the “wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23), His ultimate victory over sin.
Offered on the cross as the sacrifice to end all sacrifices, dead for three days, then raised, Jesus presents us with the way to reach God, to develop a relationship with Him and eventually reside with Him forever in Heaven.
From the rest of Romans 6:23 “but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Just trust in Jesus, acknowledge that He is the Son of God, that He died on the Cross for your sins, was buried, but rose back to life three days later, and you are well on the path to a relationship with God.
Repent of your sins (in other words, stop doing the things you know are wrong, but do anyway) and put your trust in Jesus. He will not let you down.

The Roman Road to Salvation

‘Pill’ causes breast cancer?

Tuesday, October 24th, 2006

A new study from the Mayo Clinic has concluded that there is “a measurable and statistically significant” connection between the pill and pre-menopausal breast cancer, re-enforcing the recent classification of oral contraceptives as Type 1 carcinogens.

That ruling from the International Agency for Cancer Research was supported by the report published in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings this month that comes even as Breast Cancer Awareness Month is being highlighted by pink ribbons, pink soup cans and other promotional devices.

However, the study that found that the risk association was 44 percent over baseline among women who had been pregnant who took oral contraceptives prior to their first pregnancy has been, to a large degree, ignored by many media organizations.

The report, “Oral Contraceptive use as a Risk Factor for Pre-menopausal Breast Cancer: A Meta-analysis,” was authored by Dr. Chris Kahlenborn of the Altoona, Pa., Hospital’s internal medicine department and others.

Kahlenborn said the results mean that, following standards of informed consent, “women must be apprised of the potential risk of pre-menopausal breast cancer prior to commencing drug use.”

The study, which is available online through the Mayo Clinic or at the Polycarp Research Institute, is a meta-analysis of that sometimes-fatal link.

Dr. Kahlenborn focused on the younger, pre-menopausal women who had been on the pill before having their first child. He found 21 of 23 studies showed a connection between the pill and cancer, something that certainly should be alarming women.

However, as Andrea Mrozek, manager of research and communications for the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, noted in an article.

“Perhaps it is because the pill has long been the darling of feminists – a veritable icon of female empowerment. In some circles, suggesting the pill might kill you is seen as tantamount to issuing a press release that women belong in the kitchen.”

Mrozek noted that Queen’s University professor Samantha King commented just a few weeks ago that people are not asking “the hard questions about whether we’re spending [breast cancer research money] in the right way.”

That’s because, she noted, incidence rates “have remained stubbornly high … a woman’s lifetime risk of breast cancer was one in 22 in the 1940s, but by 2004, it was one in seven.”

Original Link.

Head of Episcopal diocese OKs blessings for same-sex unions

Tuesday, October 24th, 2006

The Episcopal church continues to disintegrate as they move further away from Biblical teachings.

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) _ Episcopal priests may give a pastoral blessing to same-sex unions in church ceremonies, the head of the diocese in Connecticut announced this weekend, reversing a long-standing policy.

Bishop Andrew Smith’s decision does not allow Episcopal clergy to officiate at civil union ceremonies but permits priests, through a blessing ceremony in the church, to acknowledge gay and lesbian couples who have had a civil union granted by the state.

“At the heart of the matter is whether we as a Church will welcome and embrace, serve with and care for and bless persons who are homosexual and partnered as cherished and fully accepted members of the body of Christ,” Smith said in a speech at Christ Church Cathedral in Hartford at the diocese’s two-day annual convention that ended Saturday. “I believe it is right to change our current policy, which prohibits our clergy from blessing same-sex relationships.”

Smith said he acted because Connecticut recognizes civil unions, which became law last year, and that there has been no movement on the issue at the national level of the Episcopal Church. A report in 2003 to the archbishop of Canterbury, leader of the worldwide Anglican communion, called for a moratorium on the consecration of gay clergy and same-sex blessings by the U.S. Episcopal Church.

“What I have permitted is a pastoral ministry of blessing, which does not mimic a wedding ceremony,” Smith said in an interview after the convention, The Hartford Courant reported Sunday.

“I felt the time had come for the church to say `Yes’ since there has been no movement on the question that was emerging. And, knowing many faithful gay and lesbian folks are leading lives seeking to serve Christ, I felt that now is the time I move to say `Yes.”‘

The decision was greeted with joy by the Rev. Pat Gallagher, who leads St. Paul’s Church in Willimantic.

“I couldn’t be happier,” she said. “I’m just so excited about it. It’s a right we should have.”

One church leader was not supportive of Smith’s decision.

The Rev. Christopher Leighton, rector at St. Paul’s Church in Darien, called Smith a “perpetrator of false teaching.”

Smith’s decision was “defiant of Scripture and worldwide Christianity,” he said.

Leighton is one of five priests who have been in a theological battle with Smith since his 2003 vote in support of the consecration an openly gay bishop of New Hampshire.

Original Link.

Departing church gives up land

An Episcopal congregation in Woodbridge whose members were unhappy with liberal trends in the Episcopal Church suddenly dissolved itself last week, leaving the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia with a $420,000 bill from the property’s mortgage.
The members of Christ Our Lord Episcopal Church, a mission congregation founded in 1992, has since reconstituted under the Anglican Diocese of North Kigezi in Uganda as Christ Our Lord Anglican Church. It is the third mission to leave the diocese because of the 2003 consecration of New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson as the world’s first openly homosexual bishop, but the first to abandon its property.

Original Link.

Missouri Voters Warned Against Deceptive ‘Stem Cell’ Amendment

Tuesday, October 24th, 2006

WASHINGTON, DC (AgapePress) – As voters in the “Show Me State” head to the polls in a few weeks, they will have a chance to vote on a ballot initiative known as Amendment 2 or the “Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative.” However, a life sciences expert with the Washington, DC-based Family Research Council (FRC) is warning citizens that the proposal has nothing to do with stem-cell research.

Dr. David Prentiss is the FRC’s senior fellow for life sciences and a former adjunct professor of medical and molecular genetics at the Indiana University School of Medicine. He is cautioning Missouri voters not to be deceived by Amendment 2 and believes many, including even some pro-lifers, may be unaware of what is included in the 2,100-word ballot initiative.

This supposed stem-cell research amendment, if passed, “would enshrine in the Missouri Constitution the right for scientists to do human cloning,” Prentiss says. That is, he explains, it would allow researchers “to create human embryos by the cloning process, which is somatic cell nuclear transfer — and then require them to destroy those human embryos by the time they’re about 14 days old.”

The pro-family science scholar says the Missouri initiative would also erect a firewall so that the legislature and governor could not go back and change the amendment and could not do anything to “discourage human cloning in Missouri.” He notes that the measure is being well funded by the biotech industry, and in particular, Jim and Virginia Stowers of the Stowers Institute in Kansas City.

“The Stowers Institute is doing all types of research; but apparently, they would like to do human cloning research,” Prentiss observes. “And you also have to wonder, when you look at the amount of money they have spent — $28 million to try and, in a sense, buy a constitutional amendment in Missouri,” he says.

This begs the question of what these cloning proponents hope to gain, the FRC official notes. “I think the assumption would be safe to say they hope to gain a lot more money back on their $28 million investment,” he asserts. Also, he points out, Amendment 2 would provide special protections for the biotech industry that the Stowers Institute and others would undoubtedly like to see in place.

While the “Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative” purports to be about stem-cell research, Prentiss feels its real objective is to make human cloning for research a constitutional right throughout Missouri. He and the Family Research Council are warning voters that, if passed, Amendment 2 will force state and local governments across the state to provide taxpayer dollars for human cloning.

Original Link.

European Muslims worry about frank new Islam debate

Tuesday, October 24th, 2006

Of course with all articles from Al-Reuters, it’s necessary to use a certain degree of discernment to negate the heavy media bias we can always count on from them.

PARIS (Reuters) – Britain’s heated debate about Islamic veils reflects a growing frustration with Muslims in Europe that risks further isolating these minorities rather than integrating them, leading European Muslim activists say.

The new tone in Britain, which Muslims on the continent long saw as a model of tolerance where criticising minorities was politically incorrect, marks a watershed in the way Europeans talk about Islam, they told Reuters.

Islamist radicalism, ethnic segregation and clashes of values must be discussed openly, they agreed, but the increasingly polarised debate squeezes out moderates on both sides.

Former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw sparked off the British debate this month by saying the full facial veils some Muslim women wear hindered integration. Some Muslim leaders called his remarks offensive and accused him of whipping up Islamophobia.

“Intolerance is growing in Europe,” said Dalil Boubakeur, president of France’s Muslim Council, who saw the new mood as a response to security fears and the radicalisation of a small minority of Muslims who do not accept European values.

“There is a sense we are living in a different time,” said Dilwar Hussain, head of policy research at the Islamic Foundation in Britain.

“With all the security concerns, people feel they can be more frank,” Hussain said. “The reaction from Muslims is to recede further and further into a sense of victimhood.”

The activists said politicians and the media blamed religion for problems that are really economic and social, such as unemployment and discrimination.

Original Link.

American Jews top hate-crime targets

Tuesday, October 24th, 2006

Despite what the terrorist supporting organization CAIR (The Council on American-Islamic Relations) would like for us to believe, Muslims are NOT the number one group to be the victim of the so called “hate crimes”. Not surprising, the number one victim of hate crimes are Jews, outnumbering Muslim hate crimes seven to one.
I hope to put together an information “packet” on CAIR, which I consider to be one of the most dangerous organizations in America today, outlining their ties to terrorist support and radical Islamic teachings. In the mean time, I recommend a search of Little Green Footballs, which has quite a bit of information concerning this terrorist organization.

WASHINGTON – Who hates whom in America?

If the latest FBI hate-crime statistics are any indication, of the 1,314 verified offenses motivated by religious bias, 68.5 percent were anti-Jewish.

Only 11.1 percent were anti-Islamic, despite claims of rampant anti-Muslim bigotry in the U.S. by groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations.

Across the board, hate crimes in the U.S. dropped last year by 6 percent, according to the 2005 FBI report release last week, although violence against people based on their race accounted more than half of the reported incidents.

Police nationwide reported 7,163 hate crime incidents in 2005, targeting victims based on their race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation and disabilities. That was down from 2004, when the FBI reported 7,649 incidents.

The vast majority of hate crimes in both years were motivated by race, according the reports, which detailed the data based on so-called “single-bias” incidents. That means the crime was motivated by only one kind of bias against the victim, according to the FBI.

Race-based criminal activity accounted for 54.7 percent of hate crimes last year, up slightly from 52.9 percent in 2004, the FBI found.

Another 17 percent of hate crimes in 2005 targeted victims for their religious beliefs, and 14.2 percent for their sexual orientation.

Victims were assaulted in more than half – 50.7 percent – of the hate crime cases against people. Six people were murdered and another three were raped in reported hate crimes last year. The rest of the victims, or 48.9 percent, were intimidated, the report shows. The FBI also looked at hate crime incidents that targeted property, with 81.3 percent of cases resulting in damage, destruction or vandalism.

Sixty percent of the known offenders in 2005 were white, and 20 percent were black, the report showed.

The data was collected from police agencies across the country, representing city, county, state, tribal and federal law enforcement agencies.

Original Link.

“Without Conservative Help, Democrats Shouldn’t Bet the Farm” by David Limbaugh

Tuesday, October 24th, 2006

The real question facing voters in November is whether Democrats will be able to do to the entire legislative branch what they’ve done to their party. The agenda-less party has become infected with a paralyzing negativity born of its singular hatred for President Bush. Will that mindset be permitted to seize control of our legislative branch? Will disgruntled conservatives collude to make this happen?

How many times have you heard Democrats decrying the Bush administration for having no plan to win the peace in Iraq? We might have executed the initial phase of the war masterfully by removing Saddam, they now grudgingly concede, but we didn’t anticipate and plan for the problems that would arise after his removal.

Putting aside a debate over that assertion, let’s apply the same standard to their agenda for America today. Shouldn’t we ask:

“Democrats have a potentially masterful plan for removing Republicans from majority control, but what is their plan for action if they win?

Let’s just look at the most important issues: the war on terror, including Iraq, the economy, social issues and immigration. In each category, they either have no plan or are unwilling to publicize it for fear that Rovian Republicans will pick it apart and expose its flaws.

On immigration, no matter how poorly Republicans have performed, the Democrats’ approach would be significantly worse. They would open the borders wider, discourage assimilation further and promote amnesty harder.

On the economy, they would increase domestic spending even more. And in their compulsion to punish the “rich,” they would raise their taxes at the inevitable expense of choking the life out of our robust growth and increasing the deficit and national debt. Though the middle class and poor would be hurt, the rich would feel it, too — and that would be almost as gratifying as hating President Bush.

On social issues, Democrats and the mainstream media are engaged in an elaborate scam. I’ve been saying for years that they have undisguised contempt for traditional values voters. They are proving it daily through their concerted drive to suppress the values voter turnout.

Their inconsistent pretense to represent this very block of voters was revealed as the fraud it is by recent comments of Newsweek’s liberal Jonathan Alter, who said, “I hope this election is going to mark the demise of values voters … that they don’t determine the election the way they were seen to have the last time around.”

It is inconceivable that Christian conservatives are blind to the left’s contempt for them or self-destructive enough to contribute to the ascension of the party that boos the Boy Scouts and filibusters Constitution-honoring judges.

On national security generally, Democrats would ratchet up even further their opposition to almost every tool we use to prosecute the war.

On Iraq, if you concede that conditions there are discouraging, you still — as a responsible voter — must ask yourself what Democrats would do differently — unless you are just too angry to care. Democrats are irreversibly committed to the myth that Iraq is not part of the war on terror — never mind that all global jihadists themselves radically disagree.

This commitment requires Democrats to deny the consequences our precipitous withdrawal would necessarily have on the war on terror — and thus on America’s security. The April 2006 NIE report concludes that our withdrawal from Iraq would embolden terrorists and make us more vulnerable at home. Other experts who Democrats are fond of citing, like James Baker, also warn that it would create worse civil and ethnic strife and cause Iraq to become more of a hotbed for terrorist mischief. But, hey, reversing Bush’s policy and discrediting him must take priority over the national interest.

Not only would the Democrats’ Bush-hating and policy-bankruptcy be demonstrated in their approach to the issues; it would also play out in their endless investigations against the president and possible efforts to impeach him upon taking control.

Don’t discount the possibility that all this hype about conservatives staying home is a carefully orchestrated ruse to suppress their turnout. Even if it isn’t, the liberals’ arrogance and premature boasting will surely motivate to the polls all but those rare, implacable conservatives, because even disgruntled conservatives know we can’t afford to teach big-spending Republicans a lesson in the middle of a war.
Consider also that Republicans are better organized and funded and possess more intensity, that many polls have oversampled Democrats and that as the election approaches, voters will more seriously compare the parties’ respective fitness to protect America. Democrats better not bet their farms just yet.

(Emphasis mine. -ed.)

Original Link.