journeywithjesus's Xanga

Sunday, June 13, 2004

Sun, 13 Jun 2004 19:27:25 GMT

Racial Paradox of Reagan Presidency
Earl Ofari Hutchinson

The great myth is that former President Ronald Reagan did more damage to
civil rights and social programs than any other modern day president. Reagan’s
occasional digs at civil rights leaders, and his unabashed tout of states rights,
and the conservative social agenda, fueled expectations among many
conservatives that Reagan would scrap welfare, dismantle Great Society social programs,
and most importantly torpedo affirmative action. At his first press conference
the week after his inauguration, Reagan told reporters, “I’m old enough to
remember when quotas existed in the United States for purposes of
discrimination and I don’t want to see that again.” Reagan’s Justice Department promptly filed dozens of lawsuits to overturn affirmative action plans negotiated with police and fire departments. Some of the court challenges succeeded, some didn’t. But the Reagan administration did
not mount a vigorous, and sustained legal challenge to affirmative action
programs, or whittle away regulations mandating diversity in government hiring,
promotions, and contracting programs that conservatives demanded. President
Clinton, a centrist Democrat did. He pared away many government affirmative action
programs, and the successful court overhaul of anti-affirmative action
admission programs came on his presidential watch. Reagan’s ambivalence on civil rights especially enraged conservatives in the Bob Jones University case in 1982. At first he backed the decision by the Justice Department to overturn an IRS decision denying a tax exemption to Bob
Jones which banned interracial student dating. When civil rights leaders denounced
the decision, Reagan quickly reversed gears, and dropped the issue. Ultimately the Supreme Court upheld the IRS. At the end of Reagan’s first term in 1984, his Justice Department brought
fewer civil rights suits in housing, education and voter discrimination cases
than during President Jimmy Carter’s first term. Yet, at a press conference, a def
ensive Reagan declared that “he felt no higher duty than to defend the civil
rights of all Americans.” Though civil rights leaders mocked him and ridiculed
his claim, Reagan’s Justice Department was far more aggressive in prosecuting, and getting convictions, in high profile police abuse and racially motivated murder cases than the Carter administration. Reagan continued to be especially sensitive, and on occasion speak out, on the issue of racially motivated violence. In his last message to Congress before departing the White House in 1988, Reagan claimed that his Justice Department had prosecuted more criminal civil
rights cases than any other administration in American history. Though civil
rights leaders continued to assail Reagan’s record on civil rights enforcement,
Reagan’s Justice Department had taken a genuine activist role in criminal civil
rights enforcement. That exemplary record was due in part to the diligence of
federal prosecutors, and, despite popular belief, to the weak history of
criminal civil rights enforcement during the administrations of moderate and
liberal Democrats, Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter. Civil rights leaders also worried that Reagan would dump the 1965 Voting Rights Act enacted During Johnson’s administration. Reagan gave every appearance that he would do just that. During the 1980 presidential campaign, he publicly
branded the voting rights act “humiliating to the South.” This delighted
white Southerners. But once in office Reagan promptly did a volt face. In 1982, he
approved a 25-year extension of the Act. This insured that black voting rolls
would continue to rise, the number of black elected officials would continue
to surge, and that the Democratic Party would remain competitive in local
races in the South. Then there was the King holiday. The instant that King was gunned down in
Memphis in 1968, civil rights and black congressional Democrats demanded the
Congress make King’s birthday a federal holiday. For a decade and a half, the
bill languished in Congress, and the attacks on King’s character and radical
politics grew more intense. Eventually, mass black pressure, and the relentless
lobbying efforts of liberal Democrats, and moderate Republicans paid off.
Congress passed the King holiday bill in October 1983. Despite massive pressure from
North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms, and King critics, and Reagan’s deep
personal misgivings about the King bill and King, he signed the bill a month later.
This made him the first and likely the last American history to sign a bill
commemorating an African-American with a national holiday. At a King
observance, the year after the holiday officially was celebrated in 1986, Reagan
denounced racial bigotry and discrimination. Reagan, in effect, wrapped himself in
King’s mantle. Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush junior have followed that precedent
and on every King holiday evoke his name and speak out against racial
discrimination. Civil rights leaders still tag the Reagan presidency the single worst period
for racial progress in recent U.S. history. But despite black fears, and to
the bitter disappointment of many conservatives, Reagan did not end affirmative
action, dismantle welfare or totally gut social programs. Reagan’s White House
years were marked by ambivalence, hesitancy, and conciliation, not the all
out assault on civil rights that blacks feared and Reagan boosters expected. And
that perhaps is one of the greatest paradoxes of the Reagan presidency.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. Visit his news and
opinion website: www.thehutchinsonreport.com He is the author of The Crisis in
Black and Black (Middle Passage Press).

Thursday, June 10, 2004

Thu, 10 Jun 2004 10:27:42 GMT

Euphemisms Tempt Christians to Conveniently Shed Guilt of Sin
'Intelligent, educated, religious people embrace illogical absurdities, set aside God's truth, and the well-being of others,' when immoral actions are not defined as sin.

By JOHN W. KENNEDY

Certainly the notion of sin isn't discussed much in society anymore. But now the very terms for sinful activities, much of them involving sexual immorality, are disappearing from common language.

Pornography? That's "adult" entertainment.

Abortion? It's really about "choice."

Adultery? "Affair" sounds more exotic.

Fornication has long been treated as an outdated term in modern language, but for many people the very concept of premarital sex is somewhat vague. If there's a news story on teenagers and sex, usually the qualifying word mentioned is "unprotected."

How do such euphemisms affect Christians? Gary R. Allen, Ministerial Enrichment national coordinator for the Assemblies of God, says wider acceptance is the result when Christians don't define immorality as sinful.

"When cultures and fads change, we mislabel the core of deadly sin," says Allen, 58. "If you take the barbs off barbed wire, eventually it doesn't hurt to go through the fence."

At the same time as biblical notions of sin have been altered, God is being removed from the public square, both legally and metaphorically. Recently, numerous Ten Commandments displays have been dismantled from in front of county courthouses and crèches removed from city parks.

Christmas vacation at public schools is now referred to as winter break. During the Christmas shopping season last year, a growing list of retailers -- including Macy's, Bloomingdale's and Home Depot -- advised employees to offer customers a happy holiday rather than a merry Christmas.

Charlie Self of Bethel Church of San Jose, California, sees a danger of such amended language causing a society to forget God and to lapse into moral degeneracy as described in Romans 1:18-32. "By the end of the process, people actually are advocating what they know is contrary to the original version of truth," says Self, 45, education pastor at the Assemblies of God church.

Self cites Playboy founder Hugh Hefner as a ringleader in transforming the nation's thought processes. Half a century ago, Hefner found a new name, sexual liberation, for an old sin pattern -- lust. While initially denounced as a degenerate rebel, Hefner in many quarters now is revered as a visionary pioneer. In fact, those who hold to the traditional sanctity of marriage are often berated for being intolerant.

The same pattern is evident this year with the homosexual marriage trend. Those standing up for moral absolutes are criticized as repressive, as if a union between a man and woman is somehow outdated.

While Christians should avoid language that whitewashes sinful behavior, Allen and Self say believers need to avoid inflammatory statements as well when debating non-Christians. "Christians shouldn't go out of their way to be hostile," Self says. "If you call two homosexuals who are living together 'sodomites,' it builds a barrier." Likewise, rather than "baby killer," some advise Christians to use the neutral term: abortionist.

Perhaps more than any other behavior, the rhetoric of abortion since its legalization 31 years ago has been an agent for changing perceptions.

Some Christians have been convinced that a compassionate position is to say they wouldn't have an abortion personally, but they support the right of others to choose for themselves.

"This generation of Christians is the first to find something good in what God has condemned," says author-lecturer Jean Staker Garton of Benton, Arkansas. "Scripture is clear. Church history is clear. The taking of innocent, unborn life is an abomination to God.

"Intelligent, educated, religious people embrace illogical absurdities that set aside not only God's truth, but also our responsibility for the well-being of others," Garton, 75, said. "When you shine the light of common sense on deceptive language couched in medical, philosophical or intellectual terms, the logic evaporates. Moral choices require that we use language to describe reality."

Garton fell into believing the false messages in 1969, when, pregnant with her fourth child, she decided to obtain an abortion. She accepted such feminist concepts as every child should be a wanted child and every woman should have a right to choose. But back then, before Roe v. Wade, she couldn't find an abortionist. Garton had the baby, but also joined an abortion-rights group. There she learned doublespeak, to never give any humanity to the baby in the womb.

Concerned, Garton -- who at the time taught college students the power of political and advertising rhetoric -- did a systematic search to see what Scripture says about unborn life. She repeatedly found in the Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Paul's epistles that God's personal call happened before birth.

"When words are warped and twisted perversely, they're eventually emptied of their true meaning," Garton says. She asked the Lord's forgiveness, and became an outspoken critic of Roe v. Wade in an era when few Protestant churches paid much attention to the issue.

Garton co-founded Lutherans for Life and in 1979 wrote "Who Broke the Baby?," which describes the deceptive language used in the abortion movement. A 1998 update of the book discussed new catchphrases such as "Abortion is a private matter" or "Abortion is between a woman and her God."

"The euphemisms haven't changed that much," Garton says. "We think we're tolerant by not imposing our morality on others. But by believing it's a woman's choice we're abdicating any personal responsibility."

Euphemisms do affect how Christians react to sin. Long before "wardrobe malfunction" entered the American lexicon at this year's Super Bowl, groups began replacing terms for what the Bible denounces as sexual perversion.

Particularly while trying to legitimize sexual sin, businesses go overboard in obscuring reality. Strippers are now called exotic dancers. The seedy connotation of strip joints has been replaced with the upwardly mobile gentleman's clubs.

Taken to a ludicrous extreme, pedophiles, in an effort to decriminalize their behavior, now substitute the phrase intergenerational intimacy.

Advocacy groups choose acronyms that belie their meaning. For instance, GLAD stands for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders while NORML represents the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

"Such euphemisms lead us to a form of intellectual suicide about which the Scriptures speak," Garton says. "Paul admonishes us to guard the truth and hold fast to words which are sound" (2 Timothy 1:13,14).

Watering down language has a tremendous impact on the attitudes of the next generation, according to Allen. "As Christians, do we still flinch at foul language, or has it become familiar and acceptable?"

Self agrees. "The fastest way to clean up the public square is to have people who profess moral and religious values actually live that way," Self says. "We have to again become powerful persuasion evangelists of the truth."

Source: Today's Pentecostal Evangel

Thursday, June 10, 2004

Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:15:06 GMT

'Saved!' Brings Down Wrath of Some Christians

By William Booth
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 10, 2004; Page C01

LOS ANGELES -- Jesus is back at the multiplex. Following the 50-foot wave left behind by Mel Gibson's dark and somber "The Passion of the Christ" comes "Saved!," a frothy teen comedy set at an evangelical high school. The film is stirring up Christian audiences and commentators, who seem torn.

Jerry Falwell, saying he had not seen the film, predicted on CNN that the movie would "crash and burn" at the box office -- as he clearly hoped it would. Falwell told Dannelly that the movie sounded like a broadside from Hollywood liberals at born-again Christians, the kind of satire that would not be socially acceptable, Falwell says, if directed at Jews, blacks or Muslims.

Dannelly says that "Saved!" is actually doing quite well, thank you very much, for a small $5 million film; it opened last week on 20 screens and, based on generally positive reviews in the mainstream media and audience interest, is now heading into wider release in 500 theaters.

"So the Reverend Falwell is wrong -- again," Dannelly says. This evening he is dressed in a crisp pink shirt and a rumpled khaki suit. He's 40 years old, lives with his dog in a self-described "crummy apartment" and drives a Mazda compact, "which is basically a Ford Fiesta."

As he struggled to get his film made, Dannelly says, he painted houses and toiled in telemarketing. He grew up in the Maryland suburbs of Washington. Raised Catholic, he attended parochial school in the first grade but was expelled for "hitting a nun. But it wasn't as bad as it sounds," he says.

For two years he went to a Christian high school, Arlington Baptist, where he says he was personally "saved" by publicly accepting Jesus Christ as his lord and savior. But again he was bounced from school, this time for excessive demerits -- "though you could get a demerit for not bringing a red pen to math class."

To round it out, Dannelly also did Jewish summer camp, returning as a camp counselor to ride herd over his charges in "Bunk Hertzel." "I learned all the Hebrew songs," he remembers. He describes his current religion as "an ongoing journey."

As a first-time director, who also wrote the screenplay with Michael Urban, Dannelly confesses that he goes onto the Internet obsessively to monitor the buzz about his film. He also sneaks into screenings to listen to the audience.

"I think I made a balanced movie," he says. "It could have gone in a lot of different ways. I don't really see it as a satire. It's more subversive. But it's still a teen comedy -- the teens just happen to be fundamentalists."

The movie is set in Blandsville, USA, at the American Eagle Christian High School, senior year. It stars Mandy Moore as Hilary Faye, the Little Miss Popular who rules over a girl-clique and pop band known as the "Christian Jewels," and who punctuates her sentences with "praise Jesus" the way Valley Girls used to say "like totally." Hilary Faye is a zealot and a comedic stereotype. Interestingly, Moore was previously embraced by Christian audiences for her role in 2002's "A Walk to Remember," when she played a serious daughter of a town minister who helps steer a wayward boy toward good.

Her gal pal is Mary (played by Jena Malone), a much more nuanced role. She learns that her boyfriend, Dean, is gay and so she sleeps with him to save him -- after having a vision of the pool boy as Jesus Christ. Mary gets pregnant.

Supporting characters include an older Macaulay Culkin as a paraplegic cynic; Eva Amurri (Susan Sarandon's daughter) as the school's lone Jew and wiseacre who interrupts a pep rally by pretending to speak in tongues; and Martin Donovan as the flippy-dippy "Pastor Skip," who asks the students, "Are you ready to get your Jesus on?"

There has been plenty of negative reaction. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Office of Film and Broadcasting rated the movie "L" -- the rating given to films "whose problematic content many adults would find troubling." The Catholic film office said "Saved!" included "religious stereotypes, an implied teen sexual encounter, homosexual references, recurring rough and crude language, profanity and several blasphemous jokes."

Ted Baehr, founder of the Christian Film & Television Commission, called it "a sad, bigoted, anti-Christian movie that mocks the Christian faith."

Dannelly says he expected a strong reaction. Just before filming began, the popular Christian rock group the Elms, who were going to perform in the movie, backed out.

Dannelly defends his work as "ultimately a very loving film, not against Christianity, but against extremism, which is very different." He says what is most gratifying to him are the religious viewers "who get it." And there have been many expressions of support.

A typical positive posting on ChristianAnswers.net came from Kelly, age 19, who wrote: "I thought Saved! was fantastic. Yes, it is a satirical look at a group of popular teenagers at a Christian high school struggling with some major choices, and that will freak some people out. And most of the characters call into question their faith, but by the end EVERY character is strengthened by their experiences and renews their commitment to Christ."

Todd Hertz, a reviewer for Christianity Today's Web site, writes, "The movie is ultimately pro-faith and does make some perceptive criticisms of evangelicals." Hertz points out the movie seeks to explore and satirize "the sometimes hateful and hypocritical ways some Christians treat homosexuals and anyone with apparent sin. In addition, Saved! pokes fun at the Christian bubble evangelicals can live in -- presenting their own awards like 'Best Christian Interior Decorator.' These criticisms are valid and could make some of us think about our behaviors -- and that 'bubble.' "

Dannelly says that was his point. He says he assumes he may spend the rest of the summer sitting on panels discussing the controversy over his movie. "And that's okay. I'm really happy to have it out there in the world. The fact that people are seeing it, that's a nice thing."

Thursday, December 18, 2003

Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:10:13 GMT

Evangelicals, Jewish community reach accord

Palm Beach Daily News (USA), Dec. 18, 2003
http://www.palmbeachpost.com
By Antigone Barton, Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Two years ago, when local Jews wrote "return to sender" on unsolicited videotapes about the life of Christ while local evangelical Christians spread their message "to the Jews first," religious leaders noticed that talk about faith was getting ugly in Palm Beach County.

So a handful of rabbis, ministers and laymen began to talk to each other.

On Wednesday they released the results of their meetings, a statement "Calling for Evangelical Jewish Understanding."

The statement, which calls upon Christians to "be honest, open, and aboveboard" and to not single out Jews when spreading word of their faith, is signed by four Evangelical ministers, five rabbis and two Jewish community leaders.

It is, "if not historic, certainly unusual," one rabbi said.

And, those involved said, the statement amounts to more than words.

It comes as Christians and Jews brace for a fresh wave of conflict, as the group called "Jews for Jesus" undertakes an unprecedented campaign through the county. The group often is supported by churches and is consistently spurned by Jewish religious leaders who say it relies on deception to win converts.

Two years ago, Christ Fellowship joined other Christian organizations, including Jews for Jesus, in mailing Jesus videotapes to homes throughout the county and in a conference called "To the Jews First in the New Millennium."

The goal, organizers said, was to follow God's biblical instructions to "witness" -- proselytize -- to Jews.

This year however, Christ Fellowship will not support activities planned in the Jews for Jesus campaign, said the Rev. Dan Light, the Palm Beach Gardens ministry's pastor.

"We had to make the choice not to provide active support, including financial," Light said. The lack of participation is not intended to indicate opposition to the group, he added.

It does reflect, he said, "that Christ Fellowship has chosen to develop a relationship with the Jewish community and to witness to all people."

The relationship grew as a group of rabbis and ministers met monthly in 2001 to explain their faiths to each other, said Bill Gralnick, regional director of the American Jewish Committee. Gralnick pulled the group together, he said, because "there had to be a better way than shouting at each other across the headlines of newspapers."

Six months ago, when Jewish leaders learned of the planned "Jews for Jesus" campaign, the dialogue deepened.

To Jews, who do not proselytize and who have seen their numbers dwindle as young people drift from their faith, being targeted by Christian proselytizers was deeply offensive, said Gralnick, who called it a "core" issue.

Evangelicals, whose faith is based around "witnessing," found that hard to understand, he said.

That a level of understanding already had been reached, however, was clear in the response of one Evangelical Christian in the group, who explained that "Witnessing is the mother of all Christian mitzvoth." Mitzvoth in Judaism is a profound religious obligation.

The statement released Wednesday calls on Evangelicals to accept "no" as a response from those to whom they try to spread their faith.

"It is the result of two years of quiet meetings between rabbis and ministers who have come to know one another and like one another," said Rabbi Stephen Pinsky of Temple Beth Torah in Wellington.

The agreement is not a compromise, both say.

"The issue that has become important to us is the way that we witness, to do so in an inoffensive way," he said. "Simply telling the message without living the message is counterproductive."

Thursday, December 18, 2003

Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:02:30 GMT

Pro-Lifers Say OTC Morning-After Pill Would Have Disastrous Results

By Jenni Parker and Bill Fancher
December 17, 2003

(AgapePress) - As the U.S. Food and Drug Administration considers approving the over-the-counter sale of an emergency contraceptive known as "the morning-after pill," pro-life and pro-family advocates warn that making the drug available without a prescription will have devastating consequences.

In a Tuesday hearing, the FDA heard advice from a panel of 28 gynecologists and pharmacists on whether the agency should approve the over-the-counter (OTC) sale of Plan B, a morning-after pill that can prevent pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex. Since Plan B is most effective if taken within 24 hours, its proponents contend that it should be available without a prescription to give women faster, easier access to it.

The majority of the panelists said the powerful contraceptive is safe and women and girls could figure out for themselves if and when they should take it. The panel voted overwhelmingly (23-4) that the morning-after pill should be approved for sale without a prescription.

After discussing medical and scientific issues, the FDA opened the meeting to the public, and several speakers raised concerns. About two-thirds of them, including several from the National Organization for Women, favored making Plan B a nonprescription drug. But some opponents questioned the pill's safety and its potential effect on abstinence rates and other contraceptive use. And others brought up ethical issues, including whether the way the drug works, whether by preventing ovulation or implantation, would be tantamount to abortion.

Judie Brown
The Dangers of Plan B
Testifying against the plan to make the morning-after pill a nonprescription drug was American Life League director Judie Brown. She insists that Plan B is dangerous and that the multi-pill regimen takes the life of a newly conceived baby. The pro-life advocate feels the FDA should never have approved the morning-after pill in the first place. "Our federal government should never sanction abortion in any form," Brown says, "whether the means of death are chemical or surgical."

In addition to Plan B's potential abortion-producing effect, Brown says it poses serious health risks to the woman or girl taking it as directed. As she testified at the hearing, the drug contains a chemical that can contribute to heart problems, circulatory problems, blood clots, ectopic pregnancies, and other serious and life-threatening problems.

Brown also pointed out that doctors ordinarily take a complete medical history of a patient before dispensing birth-control pills because prescribing them can be dangerous or lethal without access to that information -- a safeguard that would be removed if Plan B is given over-the-counter status.

Another concern is that having such ready access to Plan B would make it possible for minors to purchase the dangerous drug and take it without their parents' knowledge or consent. Brown says parents should be the ones to decide what type of drugs their children will take and when. "To further erode this natural parental role in our society is to drive another nail into the family coffin," she says.

The Push from Pro-Abortion Forces
The FDA does not have to follow the recommendation of the panel, but Brown and other pro-life advocates are concerned that the federal agency is being pushed in that direction by some powerful forces.

Tony Perkins

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins suspects that the nation's largest abortion-provider is among these forces. "Only an adherence to a pro-abortion ideology would explain any decision to make the morning-after pill as easy as baby aspirin for uninformed young girls to purchase," he says.

FRC's president asserts that in the Plan B debate, "just as in the swift and politically-motivated approval of the abortion drug RU-486, the FDA has paid more attention to Planned Parenthood than to the real needs of American women and girls."

Perkins hopes the FDA will reverse its course and keep the morning-after pill off pharmacy shelves. "The FDA must put the safety of American women and girls above the wishes of the pro-abortion lobby. They must not allow this drug to go over-the-counter," he says.

Contraception Cover-Up?
Brown suggests that some of the support for the over-the-counter sale of Plan B is the result of an uninformed public. But she doubts that the truth about the medically documented dangers of the morning-after pill and other contraceptives will be widely disseminated because that news is not considered "politically correct."

In fact, ALL's director is predicting the media will try to bury recent warnings regarding the use of birth-control pills. A new medical report has revealed that women on birth control pills are at risk of developing dangerous blood clots during extended airline flights.

Brown says the news is not surprising. "There has never been any doubt in the minds of honest people that the pill was very dangerous for women" she says, "because any time you have a female body producing its own hormones, and then additional hormones of an artificial nature are added, there are bound to be problems.

According to Brown, the media has a history of ignoring information that is not considered politically correct. "I think this latest study is just another example of the truth not being told," she says.

In the past, Brown has been among those pro-life activists who chastised the media for not reporting other important stories such as the medically documented link between breast cancer and abortion. She says such oversights are no accident.

"Of course the media is culpable," Brown says, "because the information isn't under a rock somewhere, difficult to find. There are plenty of very credible, scientific pro-life websites today. The problem is not that the correct information is not available. It's that reporters choose not to report on it."

Thursday, December 18, 2003

Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:00:48 GMT

Mom Goes to Bat for Son's 'Manger' Drawing in School's Holiday Display

By Jim Brown
December 17, 2003

(AgapePress) - A West Virginia public school has corrected an embarrassing case of viewpoint discrimination during Christmastime.

A manger scene drawing by fourth-grader Matthew Bartlett was recently excluded from a holiday picture display to be viewed by parents attending Wednesday night's Christmas program at Flemington Elementary School. Although school officials laminated the picture, they told Matthew it could not be used in the display because it mighty offend someone.

Enter Matthew's mother, Vicky. "I wrote a letter to his teacher and principal, asking them to please reconsider displaying this picture during the Christmas program [and explaining] that Christmas means a lot of things to a lot of people, and Matthew has been taught that Christmas is the birth of Jesus," she says. "That's why we celebrate it."

In her letter, Mrs. Bartlett pointed out that Christ is just as important to Matthew as Santa is to many of his classmates. She also encouraged school officials to consult their own policies on the matter, just as she had done.

"[U]nder 'Philosophy' on page one of their handbook, it said that [the school deals] with each child individually to bring out their qualities and their values and their cultural background," she says. "So I put that in the letter -- and I asked them to do the same with Matthew concerning this."

After receiving Vicky's letter, school officials had a change of heart and decided to include Matthew's picture. Needless to say, Matthew was quite pleased.

His mother explains that he reported excitedly that his picture was among others on the walls in the school hallways. When she asked him what pictures the other children drew, he responded: "Santa and the reindeer -- but they put mine in a frame."

The school apparently still has some concerns about offending people. Students at Matthew's school celebrate on Wednesday by taking part in what the school terms a "Holiday" party and a "Winter" program.

Thursday, December 18, 2003

Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:55:00 GMT


	Sodom's Solemn Warning Defending the Biblical View of Homosexuality (Part I) Feature by Ed Vitagliano December 17, 2003 (AgapePress) - For "gay" and lesbian activists intent on molding American culture in their own image, the Church is seen as the most stalwart opponent resisting the triumph of homosexual philosophy. As Paul Varnell, a homosexual columnist and writer, says, "It can scarcely be doubted that the primary, and perhaps only sources of our culture's anti-gay hostility are the Christian denominations." To counter this threat, some activists have undertaken a long-term strategy of capturing the Church from within, in order to use its long-standing moral authority as an instrument of change. However, this approach has one glaring weakness. How could churches, which hold to beliefs that are presumably anchored in Scripture, be used by activists to condone something the Bible clearly condemns -- namely, homosexuality? The solution to that dilemma has been to allege that the Scriptures have been erroneously interpreted. Some activists claim that the mistaken assessments are the result of simple ignorance, while others, like the Rev. Troy Perry, founder of the homosexually-oriented Metropolitan Community Church (MCC), assert there are more malevolent reasons. In his book, Don't Be Afraid Anymore, Perry said, "To condemn homosexuals, many denominations have intentionally misread and misinterpreted their Bibles to please their own personal preferences." Smoke and Mirrors on Sodom So what does the Bible actually say? Activists have taken great pains to provide alternative interpretations of the Biblical passages that seem to clearly condemn homosexuality. Of course, the obvious place to start is Sodom and Gomorrah. The familiar tale of the duo of doomed cities, recounted in Genesis 18 and 19, has made Sodom and Gomorrah synonymous with divine judgment. But the cities have become synonymous with something else, too: homosexuality. In fact, the word sodomy, which generally refers to unnatural sex acts (especially homosexual anal intercourse) is derived from the name of the city of Sodom. This association comes from the events of Genesis 19. When two angels, in the form of men, came to Sodom to stay with Lot, the men of the city surrounded the house and asked, "Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them" (vs. 5, KJV). Lot pleaded with them to reconsider their request, and -- shockingly -- even offered them his two virgin daughters instead. The men again demanded that the two newcomers be brought out, and even threatened Lot, after which the angels pulled Lot to safety and warned the man of God to take his family and flee Sodom. Fiery judgment then engulfed the two cities. With such a Biblical event casting its shadow over the theological landscape, how could "gay" advocates sidestep the obvious implication that God considered homosexuality a despicable sin? Some simply deny that any type of sexuality -- homosexual or heterosexual -- is in view in the Sodom and Gomorrah saga. For example, in his book, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition, Dr. Sherwin Bailey argues that the Hebrew word translated "know" in this verse does not refer to sex at all. Instead, the request on the part of the townsmen to "know" the visitors was merely a request to become acquainted with Lot's guests, especially since they were outsiders. A proper exegesis of this passage reveals the ludicrous nature of this argument. Lot responded to the initial request by beseeching the men, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly" (vs. 7, NAS). This is hardly a comprehensible statement if all the men wanted to do was meet Lot's guests and start up a conversation. Furthermore, as P. Michael Ukleja argues in Bibliotheca Sacra, with such a restricted meaning for "know," Lot's offer of his daughters to the men of the city (itself a disgraceful act) would be inexplicable. The more common approach for activists, however, has been to argue that the sin here in Genesis is not homosexuality per se, but homosexual rape. "Violence -- forcing sexual activity upon another – is the real point of this story," said lesbian English professor Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, co-author of the book Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? Mollenkott is not completely off the mark, for the story does demonstrate that the men of Sodom, after being rebuffed by Lott, fully intended to sexually brutalize Lott's visitors. However, Mollenkott misses the obvious: what if Lott's two visitors had been agreeable to the initial suggestion of carnal knowledge with the men of the city? There is nothing in the Genesis account to suggest that the resulting homosexual orgy would have been forced. The homosexuals wanted sex with the strangers, and they would take it any way they could get it; but they were homosexuals. In any case, it was not one incident alone that led to the demise of Sodom and Gomorrah. As clearly seen in Genesis 18, God had already stated that the sin of the cities was "exceedingly grave" (vs. 20). Even before the two angels showed up in Sodom, the Lord had already targeted the cities for destruction. The divine intention to "sweep away" all who lived there (vs. 23) was what led Abraham to plead for mercy in that passage's memorable example of intercession. An Inhospitable Folk? So what were the "exceedingly grave" sins which led to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? Most Christians would be surprised to hear an interpretation of these events that did not even include the issue of homosexuality -- but that is precisely what many activists offer. "Many contemporary [scholars] agree that the Old Testament story about the destruction of Sodom cannot be read as a lesson about divine punishment of same-sex copulation. If any lesson is wanted from the story, the lesson would seem to be about hospitality," said Mark D. Jordan, Emory University professor of religion. As bizarre as that assertion might seem at first, Jordan's explanation is worth investigating. In Ezekiel 16:49-50, the prophet addresses the sins of Israel by pointing to the sins of Sodom: "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it." Ezekiel clearly links Sodom's judgment -- at least in part -- to the city's pride and luxurious lifestyle, and the inhabitants' refusal to help those in need. Do we have two conflicting accounts of Sodom's guilt in Scripture? Does Genesis focus on homosexuality, while the prophet Ezekiel accuses the city's inhabitants of pride and inhospitality? The two passages are actually in agreement, for Ezekiel does not ignore the issue of homosexuality at all. The prophet's reference to the fact that Sodom "committed abominations" before God is no doubt a reference to the inhabitants' homosexual proclivities – especially with the Genesis story in the minds of Ezekiel's hearers. After all, the Jews understood "abomination" as a common way of referring to grotesque sexual sin like homosexuality (Lev. 18:22). Therefore, rather than being an unexpected revision of Scriptural history, Ezekiel's reference to Sodom is a clear explanation of it, adding to the Genesis account, rather than contradicting it. The "arrogant self-indulgence" of Sodom's citizens contributed to the sexual perversion. In fact, this supposition fits more reasonably within the context of Ezekiel's denunciation of Israel -- who, after all, is the real subject of the prophet's preaching. Israel's harlotries and abominations, clearly laid out in the earlier portions of Ezekiel 16, are tied to the unfaithful nation's own wealth and material blessings (vv. 10-14). Such luxury and arrogance, therefore, can lead to sexual perversion, and that would be the precise impact of Ezekiel's reference to Sodom. However, the attempt to deflect away from homosexuality the horror of the judgment upon Sodom and Gomorrah receives its fatal blow from the New Testament. In verses which even Jordan calls "problematic," the epistles of both 2 Peter and Jude link Sodom's guilt to carnality and sexual perversion. In 2 Peter 2, the apostle said the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah should serve as an example to the wicked of every generation (vs. 6). Lott, he said, continually witnessed "the sensual conduct of unprincipled men," who, among other things, "indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires" (vv. 7, 10). Jude 7 makes the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah even more explicit: the inhabitants "indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh," and what could be stranger than men fornicating with other men? While the two cursed cities may have been judged for more than their homosexuality, there is no legitimate way to remove homosexuality from the list of sins that doomed them. The Deadly Sin Openly homosexual Rev. Peter J. Gomes, the Plummer Professor of Christian Morals at Harvard University, also insists on reinterpreting the Sodom and Gomorrah story. In The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Heart and Mind, which argues for Christianity's acceptance of homosexuality, Gomes says that even Jesus "was under the impression that Sodom was destroyed because it lacked hospitality." His proof? Gomes cites Matthew 10, in which the Lord Jesus prepared His disciples to go forth and preach the gospel among the cities of Israel. Some cities, of course, would reject the message of the kingdom, but the disciples were simply to turn away from them. "Truly I say to you," Jesus warned ominously, "it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city" (vs. 15). In Gomes' mind, Jesus' reference to the destruction of the doomed cities is yet another warning against inhospitality. Gomes' exegesis is inexcusably poor. Jesus did not use the judgment upon Sodom and Gomorrah as an indictment against inhospitality, but as a warning against rejecting the gospel. As Brian Fitzpatrick argues in the Lambda Report, it is the severity of the Old Testament judgment that is in Jesus' view, not the reasons for it. Ironically, in turning to Matthew 10 in an attempt to excuse Sodom and Gomorrah, Gomes has laid the groundwork for his own judgment. In rejecting the necessity of repentance (by homosexuals) for entrance into the kingdom of God, he has placed himself in the position of the very cities to which Jesus referred in Matthew 10. Homosexual activists like Gomes, by repudiating the obvious meaning of Scripture, run the risk of committing the most deadly sin of all -- unbelief. Ed Vitagliano, a regular contributor to AgapePress, is news editor of AFA Journal, a publication of the American Family Association. This article appeared originally in the November/December 2003 issue. © 2003 AgapePress all rights reserved

Thursday, December 18, 2003

Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:48:23 GMT

Network of 'Dissenting' Episcopalians Seeks Separate Recognition from Archbishop
But ECUSA's Presiding Bishop Says Issues Can Be Handled Internally

By Jim Brown and Jody Brown
December 17, 2003

(AgapePress) - The head of the Episcopal Church USA is vowing the denomination will resolve internal divisions over the consecration of a homosexual bishop without intervention from Anglicans overseas.

Traditionalist Episcopalians who opposed the consecration of New Hampshire Bishop Vicki Gene Robinson are building a separate network of Episcopal churches and are asking Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams to provide direct oversight for them.

But in a letter to American bishops, ECUSA's Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold says that together they will devise their own means of providing alternative leadership for dissenting congregations -- and that "speculations about alternative structures and realignments are unhelpful."

However, as Dr. Kendall Harmon with the American Anglican Council points out, 13 traditionalist Episcopal bishops have agreed to form the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses under Bishop Bob Duncan of Pittsburgh. "There's a lot of parishes and individuals who want to be a part of that confessing network, and that skeleton is beginning to be formed," Harmon explains. Among the confessing dioceses are places like South Carolina, Albany, and Ft. Worth.

According to Harmon, traditionalist Episcopalians believe Robinson's consecration has created irreconcilable differences with their denomination's leadership.

"The sense of people on the ground within dioceses and parishes is [that] this is a very serious crisis and it's not something that is going to go away," he says. In addition, he says the issue is one that can no longer be talked through "because the American church has unilaterally gone ... against the clear teaching of scripture and against the clear majority will of the Anglican Communion."

In a letter to those in the Network, Bishop Duncan emphasizes the group's objective is not to set up an "alternative denomination," as reported by The Washington Times. The group's formation, he says, was needed to "prevent the orthodox minority from being marginalized"

"[W]e are the ones living under ECUSA's constitution and canons," Duncan writes. "We are adhering to the traditions of the faith and the teachings of Holy Scripture."

The bishop says he believes it his duty to "remain firm on the biblically-based historic and redemptive teachings of the church in order to convince even those who support the vote of General Convention that popular culture cannot dictate to a Holy God." And as revisionists become more aggressive in ECUSA, he says, the Network will remain available to "those who stand in solidarity regarding the repudiation of the anti-Scriptural decision of General Convention."

"Cultures fail, but God's offering of a reclaimed life will never change," Duncan writes.

Thursday, December 18, 2003

Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:46:35 GMT

Playboy at 50
Hefner’s Philosophy of Half Truths

Mark Gauvreau Judge

December 15, 2003

When I first noticed that Playboy had produced a special 50th anniversary issue of the magazine, I was reminded of something the late theologian Dietrich von Hildebrand once said. In his book Trojan Horse in the City of God, von Hildebrand exposed a simple yet profound reality: we live in the age of the incomplete truth. As Von Hildebrand saw it, an incomplete truth is just what it sounds like – something that is true, but not fully true. For example, if a Christian were to announce that loving one’s neighbor was the way to heaven it would be true but, only incompletely. It’s important to love one’s neighbor, but only because such love glorifies God.

Von Hildebrand also applied his thesis to sex, admonishing the Catholic Church for (at least until John Paul II revolutionized the Church’s view of human sexuality with his philosophy of The Theology of the Body) regarding sex as simply and solely a way to procreate. “The mystery of procreation itself can be adequately seen only against the background of the communion of love,” he wrote, “the doctrine stressing procreation exclusively is an incomplete truth.”

All of which brings us to Hugh M. Hefner, perhaps the greatest purveyor of the incomplete truth in human history. Hefner did the Catholic Church one better: he separated sex from both procreation and love. Hefner took sex and declared that it was perfectly natural and as such, nothing to be ashamed of – really not all that different than going to the bathroom. As von Hildebrand noted, an incomplete truth is not a lie, which is why Hefner is such a slippery interviewee. Try to pin him down with an argument about morality, and he slithers away with something that’s hard to refute: sex is a normal function of out bodies.

Yet the irony of Hefner is that he is missing out on the best sex in life - indeed, the only sex that is human. That is, sex grounded in the committed love of another person. It is also the only sex that is in fact a form of freedom.

Sex is indeed natural. It also, as Hefner points out, oftentimes does not involve love. Yet when it does not involve love and is detached from shame – a healthy form of modesty - it is less than human and far less than sublime. Despite Hef’s declaration that “we won” the sexual revolution, it is a victory with a toxic prize. The racy playboy lifestyle is now found wanting as it tries to smile through AIDS, the depersonalization of the Girls Gone Wild Generation and the tragedy of oral sex among sixth graders. It is as empty and hostile to the individual person as the puritan sterotypes Playboy has used as a boogeyman for half a century. Hefner can tell his incomplete truth about biological needs and healthy sex but he can’t ignore the other half of that truth: Sex is also supernatural, something that elicits a commitment from the soul and can be, in the words of John Paul II, “an icon of the interior life of God.” Of course, the Pope is referring to sex within the context of marriage. Yet only an age as in love with irony as ours could produce the phenomenon by which the pope of the Catholic Church offers a more rich, mystical, realistic, and deeply human insight into sex than the world’s most well-known pornographer.

As the world emerges from the sexual revolution and tries to shake itself into a new sobriety, Hef is like the guy at your 50th high school reunion who shows up with someone younger than your daughter and still tells those tired old “naughty” jokes. He never grew up, and the act is stale. He’s still proclaiming the “playboy philosophy,” a thicket of incomplete truths and outright lies:

“We hold that man’s personal self-interest is natural and good and that it can be channeled, through reason, to the benefit of the individual and his society.”

“The irony of censorship is that if we were to permit a completely unrestricted, censor-free society, none of the oft-expressed forebodings of social doom and moral degradation and disintegration would be realized.”

“We believe in the existence of absolute truth – not in the mystical or religious sense but in the certainty that the true nature of man and the universe is knowable, and the conviction that the acquisition of such truth should be one of the major goals of mankind.”

This kind of thing doesn’t provoke outrage as much as sympathy: can this old man really still believe this stuff? That man’s self-interest can do nothing but good, live sex on prime-time TV and prostitution in every neighborhood in America is free speech that would have no consequences, and a major goal of mankind is the hunt for the truth – but can only be realized as long as that hunt does not entail religion? Yeah, and you can’t catch anything in the grotto. Hefner wheels out Norman Mailer and Hunter S. Thompson for the anniversary – two tired warhorses from the golden age of postwar iconoclasm. As if that were not enough, Hef recruits liberal pundit Al Franken as a bonus. It’s hard to tell which man embarrasses himself more.

Hunter Thompson is regressing, chipping away his old self faster than Michael Jackson. Thompson has gone from a sharp social and political observer who earned his occasional outbursts with footwork and solid reporting, to a petulant egoist who is far too enamored of the tropes that made him famous. Either that or the drugs have incinerated his talent. His piece on 50 years of Playboy offers the usual bursts of outrage encased in phony apocalyptic meltdown: “I am personally embarrassed by the fascist sink these … greedheads from Texas have plunged us into. Those pigs deserve to be boiled in their own oil.” Yeah, yeah, Hunter, whatever.

Playboy apologist Norman Mailer offers more of the same, reading from the leftist scripture: Bush stole the election, lied about the war, is destroying democracy, etc. Having abandoned even incomplete truths for false extremism, Mailer comes up with what may be the most disturbing thing I’ve ever seen this sad, pugnacious hack write: “Is it possible to agree that abortion is indeed one form of murder and yet is still a woman’s right?” Here we finally see the shadow of fascism that Mailer, Thompson and Hefner conjure every time a republican wins an election. Mailer is advocating nothing less than state-sanctioned murder of an entire class of people based on nothing but their size, and announcing that he can live with that and we should as well.

Al Franken’s diatribe pits Jesus against the Bush administration: “Jesus wouldn’t be doing what his administration is doing,” he says. “Jesus talked about helping the meek, he talked about the poor, and he talked about mercy and compassion.” Of course, he conveniently forgets that Christ also had a few things to say about adultery, hell, and the unappealing fate of heretical faiths. But like Hefner, Franken is no liar. He just tells incomplete truths.

Mark Gauvreau Judge is a freelance writer who lives near Washington, D.C. His most recent book is Damn Senators: My Grandfather and the Story of Washington’s Only World Series Championship (Encounter, 2003).

For Further Reading:

“Yearning for a glimpse of shocking stocking” by Suzanne Fields, Townhall.com, December 15, 2003.

“The Mainstreaming of Pornography” BreakPoint Commentary, November 5, 2003.

“Protection From Pornography Week, 2003,” a Proclamation by the President of the United States of America, 25 October 2003.

Natasha Walter, “ Is porn now respectable?” Evening Standard ( London), 21 October 2003.

Bill Keveney, “ Hollywood gets in bed with porn,” USA Today, 16 October 2003.

Keith Peters, “ Congress Encourages War on Pornography,” Family News in Focus, 30 October 2003

Stephen Witty, “ Sex makes a comeback, but what about love?” Star-Ledger (NJ), 26 October 2003. (Warning: graphic descriptions.)

“Your Tax Dollars at Work: Reckless Spending at the NIH” BreakPoint Commentary, September 24, 2003

Jan LaRue, “ Hard-Core Harm: Why You Can’t Be Soft on Porn,” Concerned Women for America, 22 October 2003. (Adobe Acrobat Reader Required.)

Roberto Rivera, “ Virtual Virtue,” BreakPoint Online, May 1, 2002 .

Read Mercer Schuchardt, “ Elephantiasis: How Pornography Has Become as American as Apple Pie,” BreakPoint Online, 2000.

Articles on the BreakPoint website are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Chuck Colson or Prison Fellowship Ministries. Links to outside articles or websites do not necessarily imply endorsement of their content.

Thursday, December 18, 2003

Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:43:39 GMT

Myth Meets Real Life
Lord of the Rings and the Present Crisis

BreakPoint with Charles Colson

December 16, 2003

Tomorrow, The Return of the King, the final chapter in J. R. R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings trilogy, opens in theaters across the country. At the press event earlier this month in Los Angeles, the cast and crew reflected on the experience of making the films: the friendships, camaraderie, and hardships.

The film, of course, has a great message, but one cast member added a powerful—if politically incorrect—perspective of his own. He talked about how the crises and challenges depicted in Tolkien’s mythical world might help us cope with those we confront in our world today.

John Rhys-Davies, who plays Gimli the dwarf, told writers that “the older I get, the more certain I am of the presence of evil” in the world. Such a declaration by itself sets Rhys-Davies apart from many in the entertainment industry. But the British actor didn’t stop there. He said that Tolkien was “basically saying” that there are “times when a generation may be challenged. And if that generation does not rise to meet that challenge, you could lose an entire civilization.”

According to Rhys-Davies, this message has a “huge resonance for today.” For someone who, as he put it, believes in “Judeo-Greek-Christian-Western civilization,” recent developments, especially in Europe, are a “catastrophe.”

The civilization that has given us “democracy, the equality of women, the abolition of slavery . . . and the right to true intellectual dissent” is under assault—specifically, Rhys-Davies noted, under assault by radical Islam. Instead of resisting that assault, parts of the Western world—and here, he’s referring to Europe—are committing cultural suicide.

Rhys-Davies pointed to demographic trends in Europe here, in some cases, the majority of children being born are the children of Muslim immigrants. While it’s politically incorrect to notice this fact, it’s folly to ignore the cultural implications.

The actor also expressed his support for the war in Iraq. He called it “extraordinary” and called Americans “the most optimistic people in the whole . . . world.” He noted that no one believed that you could democratize Germany and Japan after World War II. Now, we’re trying to do the same in the Middle East .

Now, views like these don’t exactly endear Rhys-Davies to many of his fellow actors. As he put it, he takes a “lot of stick” for his views. Still, the benefits of Western civilization are so great that the alternative isn’t some multicultural paradise. It’s darkness. In Tolkien’s language, it’s the Orcs, Uruk-hai, and Sauron.

These are strong, but necessary words. Our culture is hesitant to use the word evil, refusing even to recognize what’s at stake in places like Iraq. Nowhere is this refusal more adamant than in the industry of which Rhys-Davies is a part. Yet, not a single one of Rhys-Davies’s critics—those “giving him stick”—would dream of giving up the benefits of Western civilization. They’re not willing to pay the price for its defense, beginning with the acknowledgment that it’s under attack.

But that price must be paid. As the trailer for The Return of the King tells us, “there is no freedom without sacrifice.” Tolkien understood that, and so does the man who brought his heroic dwarf to life on the big screen.

For further reading and information:

Charles Colson, “ Finishing the Job ,” BreakPoint WorldView, November 2003.

BreakPoint Commentary No. 030911, “ Terrorism, War, and Evil .”

See yesterday’s BreakPoint commentary , “A Triumphant Return.” See also the BreakPoint Commentaries: “ Preparatio Evangelica ,” “ Now at a Theater Near You ,” and “ Defrocking Frodo and the Death of the Imagination .” (Archived commentaries; free registration required.)

Visit the website for The Return of the King .

Frank Rich, “ The mirrors of American unease ,” International Herald Tribune, 12 December 2003 .

Andy Seiler, “ ‘Rings’ comes full circle ,” USA Today, 11 December 2003 .

Andrew Coffin, “ ‘Baptized imagination’ ,” WORLD, 20 December 2003 .

Michael H. Kleinschrodt, “ Tolkien’s Unlikely Heroes ,” The Times-Picayune ( New Orleans ), 12 December 2003 .

Read more reviews linked at Rotten Tomatoes.

Read articles on the making of the Lord of the Rings trilogy from the New Zealand Herald.

J. R. R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings (Houghton Mifflin, 1974).

See the “ BreakPoint with Chuck Colson Recommended Films List .”