Archive for April 8th, 2010

Tennessee Biology Textbook Biased Against Christians and Jews.

Thursday, April 8th, 2010

A father is trying to get a biology textbook banned, which very latently, is biased against Christian and Jews belief in how the world was created.

A Tennessee father says a biology textbook should be banned from his son’s curriculum because of it’s ‘bias’ against Christians.

Kurt Zimmermann is appealing a Knoxville school district’s decision to keep the book. He says the textbook used in his son’s biology class cites creationism as a “biblical myth.” According to reports, he requests, ‘non-biased’ textbooks be used. In his words, the current textbook’s phrasing misleads, belittles and discourages students in believing in creationism and calls the Bible a myth.

Knoxville County School superintendent Jim McIntyre says the committee’s finding to keep using the book is appropriate. However he asks the board to hear Zimmerman’s appeal Wednesday, April 7.

Melissa Copelan, the board’s director of public affairs tells Fox News, “when there is a concern about education materials there is a process that is followed… Now it is up to the board.”

She referred to procedure listed on the school board’s Web site. When there is a complaint about curriculum board members put together a committee- six members, including the high school’s principal, a biology teacher, a parent and a student.

Even though a few of the members thought the material was “questionable,” the committee ultimately said it’s “appropriate for an honors level biology course.”

Local papers report Zimmerman pulls a quote from page 319 in the book, Asking About Life, where creationism is described as, “the biblical myth that the universe was created by the Judeo-Christian God in 7 days.”

Original Link.

Hobby Lobby Begets Bible Museum

Thursday, April 8th, 2010

We have blogged about David Green, the outspoken Christian who founded and runs the Hobby Lobby chain of retail stores and recently started the Christian book store chain, Mardels. It is difficult to find a business person who is willing to espouse their Christian beliefs in the workplace like Mr. Green does. We are proud of him for truly living his Christian work ethic.
Mr. Green’s latest venture is the creation of a Bible Museum.

Steve Green [David Green’s son], president of the Oklahoma-based [Hobby Lobby] company, says tentative plans call for a 300,000-square-foot facility to be located in a major metropolitan area that would provide an interactive history of the Bible.

“To be able to tell that story well is going to take a lot of space,” Green explains. “It’s the most loved and the most hated book probably that’s ever been written. [We will be] telling about how it’s been persecuted, how it’s been loved, and so there is a lot of story to tell…” He adds that it “would be not only a major museum, but also a center of study.”

In fact, a valuable addition to the museum has already been purchased, notes Green. “It’s the Codex Climaci Rescriptus, and it is one of the most rare or one of the oldest relatively complete Bibles…and we were able to pick that up,” he reports.

Original Link.

“God Hates Judges” by Ann Coulter

Thursday, April 8th, 2010

In an opinion that may have been written by Heidi Montag, a federal court of appeals recently threw out a jury verdict in favor of a father, Albert Snyder, who had sued protesters at his son Matthew’s funeral for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Solely because Matthew was a Marine, a Kansas-based cult, consisting mostly of members of a single family, traveled to Maryland in order to stand outside Matthew’s funeral with placards saying things like, “God Loves Dead Soldiers,” “God Hates You,” “You’re Going to Hell,” “Semper Fi Fags,” “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “Thank God for IEDs” and “God Hates Fags.”

But wait, it gets funnier.

The cult’s leader/father is Fred Phelps, who calls America a “sodomite nation of flag-worshipping idolaters.” Since you won’t read it anyplace else, Phelps has run for public office five times — as a Democrat.

The Fred Phelps cult members travel around the country and hold vile signs outside military funerals because they believe that the reason American soldiers die in wars is that God hates the U.S.A. because it tolerates homosexuals.

I’ll leave it to others to speculate as to why the very thought of male homosexuality gets Fred Phelps into such a lather.

Snyder has appealed his case to the Supreme Court, and now the court will have to decide whether the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) can ever exist in a country with a First Amendment.

Unlike many legal concepts, the tort of IIED is not an obscure legal doctrine written in pig Latin. It means what it says: speech or conduct specifically intended to inflict emotional distress. The usual description of the tort of IIED is that a reasonable man viewing the conduct would react by saying, “That’s outrageous!”

The Second Restatement of Torts (1965) defines IIED as conduct “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.”

As a respected New York judge, Judith Kaye, described it, “The tort is as limitless as the human capacity for cruelty.” Inasmuch as IIED claims are made based on all manner of insults, rudeness, name-calling and petty affronts, the claim is often alleged, but rarely satisfied.

But if a group of lunatics standing outside the funeral of a fallen American serviceman with hateful signs about the deceased does not constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress, then there is no such tort recognizable in America anymore.

The protesters weren’t publishing their views in a magazine, announcing them on a “Morning Zoo” radio program, proclaiming them on some fringe outlet like “Countdown With Keith Olbermann” -– or even standing on a random street corner. Their protest was held outside a funeral for the specific purpose of causing pain to the deceased’s loved ones.

But the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals noticed that the cult’s malicious signs contained words, and that words are “speech” … which is protected by the First Amendment! (Or was it the Seventh?) Anyway, that was basically the end of the court’s analysis.

True, speech will often be involved in inflicting emotional distress on someone, say, for example, standing outside a funeral with signs that say “God Hates You!”

Similarly, words are used in committing treason (“The Americans are over here!”), robbery (“Your money or your life!”) and sexual harassment (“Have sex with me or you’re fired.”). Copyright law prohibits speech that uses someone else’s words, and insider trading and trade-secrets laws prohibit the use of words revealing insider information or trade secrets.

The fact that “speech” was involved in the Fred Phelps cult’s assault on Matthew Snyder’s funeral is a mundane and irrelevant fact. The question is: Did that speech constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress? Hey, look! That reasonable man over there is nodding his head “yes.” If so, the First Amendment is as irrelevant as it is to a copyright law violation.

The Supreme Court has upheld shockingly restrictive bans on speech outside of abortion clinics: content-based restrictions on the speech of pro-lifers singing, “Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world, red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight, Jesus loves the little children of the world.”

Is abortion more sacrosanct than a son’s funeral? Is singing “Jesus loves the little children” deserving of less First Amendment protection than placards saying, “God Loves Dead Soldiers”? Hey, reasonable man over there — got a minute?

Even the Fred Phelps cult’s “epic” posted online and accusing the Snyders of raising their son badly, which would seem to have the strongest claim to First Amendment protection, would not be protected in other contexts. Last week in Massachusetts, nine teenagers were criminally charged with cyberbullying, based in part on malicious postings about the victim on their Facebook pages.

Thanks to idiot lawyers, who think it makes them sound smart to say “Black is white” and “Up is down,” one of the biggest problems in society today is the refusal to draw lines. Here’s a nice bright line: Holding malevolent signs outside the funeral of an American serviceman who died defending his country constitutes intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Original Link.

Black Conservative Tea Party Backers Take Heat

Thursday, April 8th, 2010

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) – They’ve been called Oreos, traitors and Uncle Toms, and are used to having to defend their values. Now black conservatives are really taking heat for their involvement in the mostly white tea party movement—and for having the audacity to oppose the policies of the nation’s first black president.

“I’ve been told I hate myself. I’ve been called an Uncle Tom. I’ve been told I’m a spook at the door,” said Timothy F. Johnson, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, a group of black conservatives who support free market principles and limited government.

“Black Republicans find themselves always having to prove who they are. Because the assumption is the Republican Party is for whites and the Democratic Party is for blacks,” he said.

Johnson and other black conservatives say they were drawn to the tea party movement because of what they consider its commonsense fiscal values of controlled spending, less taxes and smaller government. The fact that they’re black—or that most tea partyers are white—should have nothing to do with it, they say.

“You have to be honest and true to yourself. What am I supposed to do, vote Democratic just to be popular? Just to fit in?” asked Clifton Bazar, a 45-year-old New Jersey freelance photographer and conservative blogger.

Opponents have branded the tea party as a group of racists hiding behind economic concerns—and reports that some tea partyers were lobbing racist slurs at black congressmen during last month’s heated health care vote give them ammunition.

But these black conservatives don’t consider racism representative of the movement as a whole—or race a reason to support it.

Angela McGlowan, a black congressional candidate from Mississippi, said her tea party involvement is “not about a black or white issue.”

“It’s not even about Republican or Democrat, from my standpoint,” she told The Associated Press. “All of us are taxed too much.”

Still, she’s in the minority. As a nascent grassroots movement with no registration or formal structure, there are no racial demographics available for the tea party movement; it’s believed to include only a small number of blacks and Hispanics.

Some black conservatives credit President Barack Obama’s election—and their distaste for his policies—with inspiring them and motivating dozens of black Republicans to plan political runs in November.

For black candidates like McGlowan, tea party events are a way to reach out to voters of all races with her conservative message.

“I’m so proud to be a part of this movement! I want to tell you that a lot of people underestimate you guys,” the former national political commentator for Fox News told the cheering crowd at a tea party rally in Nashville, Tenn., in February.

Tea party voters represent a new model for these black conservatives—away from the black, liberal Democratic base located primarily in cities, and toward a black and white conservative base that extends into the suburbs.

Black voters have overwhelmingly backed Democratic candidates, support that has only grown in recent years. In 2004, presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry won 88 percent of the black vote; four years later, 95 percent of black voters cast ballots for Obama.

Black conservatives don’t want to have to apologize for their divergent views.

“I’ve gotten the statement, ‘How can you not support the brother?'” said David Webb, an organizer of New York City’s Tea Party 365, Inc. movement and a conservative radio personality.

Since Obama’s election, Webb said some black conservatives have even resorted to hiding their political views.

“I know of people who would play the (liberal) role publicly, but have their private opinions,” he said. “They don’t agree with the policy but they have to work, live and exist in the community … Why can’t we speak openly and honestly if we disagree?”

Original Link.

Pediatricians Warn Educators Not to Promote Being ‘Gay’

Thursday, April 8th, 2010

More organizations are speaking out against the normalization of homosexual behavior in children, asking that it not be promoted or encouraged through schools.

A professional organization for pediatricians has dispatched letters to thousands of school superintendents across the United States with a warning that promoting – or “affirming” – the homosexual lifestyle to young children can be damaging them.

The letter was sent just days ago by the American College of Pediatricians, a nonprofit organization funded by members and donors, to school superintendents that tells them plainly, “It is not the school’s role to diagnose and attempt to treat any student’s medical condition, and certainly not a school’s role to ‘affirm’ a student’s perceived personal sexual orientation.”

Further, schools can create a “life of unnecessary pain and suffering” for a child when they reinforce a behavior chosen out of a child’s “confusion.”

“Even when motivated by noble intentions, schools can ironically play a detrimental role if they reinforce this disorder,” said the letter, signed by Dr. Tom Benton, the organization’s president.

The group also has created a website, called Facts About Youth, as a resource for school officials to obtain the facts from a “non-political, non-religious channel.”

Officials with the College of Pediatricians told WND today that the effort is specifically to counter information delivered to the same schools in 2008 in a brochure called “Just the Facts About Youth and Sexual Orientation” that was sponsored in part by the American Psychological Association.

That brochure, the College of Pediatricians said, “omits critical facts and makes recommendations that are refuted by decades of scientific research and extensive clinical experience.”

“Most alarmingly,” the College of Pediatricians website said, “the recommendations offered will place young people at increased risk of grave psychological, emotional, and physical harm.”

The new letter to more than 14,000 superintendents nationwide and the creation of the website presents to educators a message that is in conflict with a long list of other influences, including a move that would create special affirmations to students expressing a gender identity issue that is being considered at the congressional level.

California long has maintained teaching standards that affirm homosexual behavior, and according to the Campaign for Children and Families, a new legislative plan in the state, ACR 82, could be used to punish children who violate school-enforced “discrimination-free” zone rules regarding transsexuals, homosexuals and others.

The family organization warned that the pending plan, “by labeling children’s support of traditional marriage, natural gender roles, the Bible, etc, as ‘hate,’ ‘intolerance,’ and ‘discrimination,’ ACR 82 would punish students – as well as teachers and parents on campus – who simply support natural family values.”

Such policies are rampant in the United Kingdom, where officials confirm that children as young as five years old could be labeled “offenders” for their playground comments about family values.

Even further, officials in Maine are considering rules suggested by homosexual advocates that would require all schools to allow students – male or female – access to the restroom and locker room of the gender with which they “identify.”

The “Facts” website addresses the science behind the “development of non-heterosexual attractions and gender confusion in youth” as well as the school’s proper role with students who has “sexual orientation and gender confusion issues.”

“Rigorous studies demonstrate that most adolescents who initially experience same-sex attraction, or are sexually confused, no longer experience such attractions by age 25,” the letter to schools said. “In one study, as many as 26 percent of 12-year-olds reported being uncertain of their sexual orientation, yet only 2-3 percent of adults actually identify themselves as homosexual.”

Educators should take note, then, that, “the majority of sexually questioning youth ultimately adopt a heterosexual identity,” the letter explains.

Even those children with Gender Identity Disorder, which is when the child believes he or she wants to be the opposite sex, most lose that desire after a few years “if the behavior is not reinforced,” the website said.

“In dealing with adolescents experiencing same-sex attraction, it is essential to understand there is no scientific evidence that an individual is born ‘gay’ or ‘transgender.’ Instead, the best available research points to multiple factors – primarily social and familial – that predispose children and adolescents to homosexual attractions and/or gender confusion,” the website said.

For those with such influences, therapy is helpful, the letter said.

“The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) recently released a landmark survey and analysis of 125 years of scientific studies and clinical experience dealing with homosexuality. This report, ‘What Research Shows,’ draws three major conclusions: (1) individuals with unwanted same sex attraction often can be successfully treated; (2) there is no undue risk to patients from embarking on such therapy and (3), as a group, homosexuals experience significantly higher levels of mental and physical health problems compared to heterosexuals,” the letter said.

Among the dangers facing those young children pointed toward and affirmed in a lifestyle of same-sex behavior, are “higher rates of sexually transmitted infections, alcoholism, substance abuse, anxiety, depression and suicide.”

“Public schools can harm students by suggesting that same-sex attractions are natural and unchangeable,” said Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University School of Law.

“Research shows that youth who experience sexual confusion often do so only for a temporary period. To suggest to a student that temporary sexual confusion means the person is homosexual can be damaging and harmful,” he said.

Den Trumbull, vice president of the pediatricians’ organization, said there are too many situations when “misinformation or incorrect assumptions are guiding well-intentioned educators to adopt policies that are actually harmful to those youth dealing with sexual confusion.”

Original Link.