| Support Exodusmandate.org and check out this video on youtube
Call to Dunkirk : on YouTube:
05:39
Exodus Mandate video calling all Christians to remove God's children from the Government schools. ...
video lang: getattr(, 'lang', '')
(Translation disabled)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRGZLSVph3ASUPPORT
www.CALIFORNIAEXODUS.ORG
AT THIS WEB SITE.
Stay in Gods word and pray.
Here is some encouragement from God's Holy word. You can test Gods word, it was, is and will be always TRUE.
NEH. 4:14 DO NOT BE AFRAID.....REMEMBER OUR AWESOME GOD!
GEN. 1:4 AND 1:31
JOB 2:10 SHALL WE ACCEPT GOOD FROM GOD AND NOT TROUBLE?
Support those who are fighting for our LIBERTY!!!!
--My syndicated column was published today in the New York Post. It's about San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's inadvertent role in helping pass Prop 8--which defines marriage as one man and one woman--in California.
Reactions welcomed, as always. Also, pass it around to anyone you know who would be interested, okay?
Maggie
P.S.: If you can afford $25, $50 or $100 to help us keep the fight for marriage going in California and around the country, please click here to make a donation today. (http://www.kintera.org/TR.asp?a=diJMK5OKIgLYJiJ&s=9eIFKMPnEaJMKTPvHpG&m=kuKWLeMSLcL1H)
_________________________________________
Gay Marriage & Schoolkids
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/gay_marriage__schoolkids_133607.htm (http://www.nypost.com/seven/10152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/gay_marriage__schoolkids_133607.htm)
By MAGGIE GALLAGHER
Posted: 1:00 am
October 15, 2008
IF, when the dust settles Nov. 4, California voters definitively repudiate their state Supreme Court's unjust gay-marriage ruling by voting Yes on Prop 8, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom will be a big part of the reason why.
Full disclosure: I'm president of the National Organization for Marriage, whose California chapter has raised nearly $2 million to support Proposition 8, the ballot measure to overturn the ruling that instituted Golden State gay marriage. But Newsom may have done more for the cause.
The first round of Yes on Prop 8 ads use news clips of San Francisco's mayor saying that gay marriage is coming "whether you like it or not." He looks unbearably smug dictating the future of marriage for the rest of California from his San Francisco perch.
The ads warned of the real potential consequences of gay marriage for parents, public schools, church groups and others - and, after they hit the airwaves, polls showed a dramatic surge in support for Prop 8.
So gay-marriage advocates responded with an ad claiming that the idea that public schools will teach about gay marriage, if we permit gay marriage to remain the law, is just "lies."
Right. What do gay-marriage advocates think public schools should teach about marriage, if gay marriage is the law of the land?
Marriage is a publicly affirmed status - a shared social ideal, not just a private act. When the government says gay unions are the ideal - exactly the same as husband and wife - a whole lot of people who disagree are going to find life gets a whole lot harder, especially when it comes to raising our children.
So what does Newsom do in the middle of this debate?
Why, he presides over a lesbian teachers' wedding ceremony at City Hall - to which public-school children are bused, at taxpayer expense, during school hours. (Newsom claims he was unaware of that when he agreed to preside).
That's right. Taxpayers paid for first graders to take time from reading, writing, and 'rithmetic to strew rose petals after a lesbian marriage ceremony - no doubt in the belief there was something educational about witnessing a historic civil-rights victory the courts have endorsed as the law of the land.
Let me be clear about one thing: I know many, many gay people who have no truck with the arrogance of so many leaders of the gay-marriage movement in California.. I even know some gay people (not very many) who think that the California solution struck down by the courts - civil unions for gay couples, marriage remains marriage - is common sense, not some kind of gross injustice motivated by seething hatred of gay folks.
If Prop 8 loses, expect a lot more public schools to join Newsom's crusade to promote gay marriage, "whether you like it or not."
People who think that's a good thing should have the decency to stand up before California voters and say so, instead of pretending it's not going to happen.
It already has.
(C)2008 National Organization for Marriage.
Go directly to our online store at www.LC.org
There are several ways to give to the ministry of Liberty Counsel. Mail your check to PO Box 540774 - Orlando, FL 32854, call 1-800-671-1776 or go to www.LC.org and click on the "Donate" button.
YOU CAN DO WHAT MEGAN DID, AND JERRY FALWELL TOO. SPEAK OUT.
| |
| Working to Preserve Religious Expression in School |
 |
 |
 |
|
By Jerry Falwell
Date: May 11, 2007
In the May issue of my National Liberty Journal newspaper, we featured the story of Megan Chapman, who last year was forced to make a choice between standing up for her faith in Jesus Christ or allowing school officials to silence her.
She chose not to be silent, even though Russell Springs, Kentucky school officials told her she could not mention Jesus or her faith in her valedictorian speech. At the commencement, more than 3,000 people packed her school’s gymnasium, with members of the press in attendance. And before the principal of the school could finish making his opening remarks, the senior class stood together and recited “The Lord’s Prayer.”
What an inspiring scene!
Then Megan walked to the platform, prepared only to read the poem, “The Road Less Traveled” because she had been warned not to mention her faith. But as she looked out over the audience, she prayed that God would give her a message.
And He did.
Megan put away the poem and began speaking from her heart, sharing how God is real in her life. She spoke of the peace she has encountered since giving her heart to Jesus Christ and wished that same peace for her classmates.
The speech was frequently interrupted with cheers.
One local media outlet noted a “revival-like atmosphere” at the graduation.
The next night, Megan appeared on the Fox News Channel where she was able to again share her faith in Jesus Christ.
Today, Megan, along with twin sister Mandy, is a student at Liberty University, where she is planning to study law and attend Liberty University School of Law.
Her story has inspired many young people across this nation.
I hope it encourages more to take a stand for their faith.
I’m proud to stand with Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University School of Law, and his wife Anita, president of Liberty Counsel, in the national “Friend or Foe” Graduation Prayer Campaign.
This program is designed to educate and, if necessary, litigate to ensure that prayer and religious views are not suppressed during graduation ceremonies across the nation.
As part of this year's campaign, Liberty Counsel has created red prayer wristbands which students can wear as a reminder to pray at graduation and all throughout the school year.
The wristbands are embossed with “I WILL PRAY” and “PRAY WITHOUT CEASING (THESS. 5:17).”
The wristbands serve as reminders to students that they have the constitutional right to wear religious jewelry and to pray during non-instructional times while at school. Liberty Counsel also has a free legal memo on graduation prayer which is available online at www.LC.org.
Mr. Staver stated, “The purpose of Liberty Counsel's 'Friend or Foe' Graduation Prayer Campaign is to protect religious viewpoints at graduation. Liberty Counsel will be the friend of schools that recognize the free speech rights of students and the foe of those that violate their constitutional rights. The key to graduation prayer is that the school should remain neutral — neither commanding nor prohibiting voluntary prayer or religious viewpoints.”
High school students, don’t be afraid to voice your faith in Jesus Christ! Liberty Counsel is here to help you if you should face persecution or punishment for doing so. I urge Christian students across this land to exhibit the strength of character of Megan Chapman by refusing to be silenced.
Boldly live out your faith!
DO SOMETHING, ANYTHING AND GOD WILL BLESS IT!!
As you know, the California Supreme Court has legalized homosexual marriage. This happened despite the fact that voters in California passed Proposition 22 with 61.4 percent of the vote. Proposition 22 defined marriage as only between one man and one woman.
The recent 4-3 ruling, if allowed to stand, would destroy marriage as it has been known for thousands of years. It would lead to the logical conclusion of the following:
- Legalization of polygamous and other aberrant unions as "marriages"
- Legalization of marriage between an adult parent and adult child
- Legalization of group marriage
- Overturn all the marriage laws in the other 49 state
- CONTACT THIS GROUP! American Family Association | P O Drawer 2440 | Tupelo, MS 38803 | 1-662-844-5036
Get Involved
Write Letters to Your Elected Officials
e Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States + FREE DVD!
"The Book the ACLU Does NOT Want You to Read!
I Promise. I saw it happen!"
- Gary DeMar, President of American Vision
2 FREE BONUS ITEMS WITH YOUR PRE-ORDER: FREE DVD, The Debate Over the First Amendment and FREE CD-ROM of this book with searchable/ printable book text!
"I was debating an ACLU attorney at Christmas on an NPR station. I pulled out a Xerox copy of The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States and said to her: "Until you answer this book, the ACLU can't make a case against America's Christian founding." She was shocked when she saw it. She asked where I had gotten it. The only thing that gave her relief was the fact that the book was not in print. But now it is.
"Be afraid ACLU. Be very afraid. Morris packs The Christian Life and Character with page after page of original source material making the case that America was founded as a Christian nation. The evidence is unanswerable and irrefutable. This 1000-page book will astound you and send enemies of Christianity into shock. Keep in mind that it was published in 1864 and has been out of print for more than a century. It has been newly typeset using a very readable font and added subheads."-Gary DeMar. Hardback, 1060 pages
TWO FREE BONUS ITEMS INCLUDED!
FREE DVD: Get a FREE copy of The Debate Over the First Amendment, where Herb Titus (former ACLU attorney) and Barry Lynn (Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State) face off in this stimulating head-to-head debate over the meaning of the First Amendment and Religious Freedom.
FREE SEARCHABLE/PRINTABLE CD-ROM of The Christian Life & Character with each book you purchase. It's great for cutting and pasting into articles and research papersWrite letters to your elected officials expressing your strong support for making English the official language of the United States. Members of Congress pay more attention to letters from their constituents than to telephone calls. Take the time to write, even if it is just a brief note. Click here for a sample letter to your elected officials.
DO SOMETHING, ANYTHING!!! AND GOD WILL BLESS IT!!!
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
AND TO THE REPUBLIC, FOR WHICH IT STANDS,
ONE NATION UNDER GOD,
INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY
AND JUSTICE FOR ALL!
By Alan J. Reinach
In theory, allowing homosexual couples to marry should not threaten anyone’s religious freedom. Although the social and moral implications of gay marriage are apparent to many, few realize the significant danger posed to religious freedom by the California Supreme Court ruling in May giving gays a constitutional right to marry. The Court’s decision now elevates homosexuality to the same legal status as race, a protected class. This Court has refused to grant religious freedom the same status as a fundamental right, instead expressing doubt about the free exercise of religion and ruling against religious freedom consistently in a series of decisions over the past fifteen years. The net result is a legal imbalance where gay rights enjoy maximum protection, and the rights of individual religious conscience enjoy very little protection.
It is important to reiterate at the outset of this discussion that while the Seventh-day Adventist Church upholds the biblical teachings on sexual morality — that sexual intimacy is a gift of God to be reserved for the marriage relation between a man and a woman – we also uphold the biblical doctrine of the gospel of Jesus Christ – that He died as an atoning sacrifice for all who would accept Him by faith. The love of God is not exclusive. Hence, this discussion of the conflict between gay rights and religious freedom is not intended as an attack on gays, nor should the problems posed by gay marriage give rise to hostility or prejudice against gays.
Massachusetts was the first state to approve gay marriage. Thereafter, Boston required adoption agencies to serve gays. Although Catholic Charities accounted for most of the adoptions in the city, no accommodation was offered for their religious objections to placing children with gay couples. Catholic Charities made the difficult decision to close down its adoption services, which had a devastating impact on children in Boston. This was completely unnecessary. Other adoption agencies could have provided the needed services to those gays who sought to adopt. Boston could have chosen to respect the rights of conscience of Catholic Charities, while also providing adoption services to gays. It did not have to be a “zero sum game,” with a winner and a loser. The price of Boston’s rigid adherence to political correctness is that thousands of children who need to be placed in adoptive homes will be delayed indefinitely, and will languish in foster care. What a tragedy!
The experience of Catholic Charities in Boston is an ominous warning about the risks faced by many religious organizations. It is important to understand that the goal is to equate the religious moral position regarding homosexuality as the equivalent of racism. This was evident in the arguments presented to the California Supreme Court in the case. The opening argument criticized the domestic partnership system as an unacceptable “separate but equal” approach, akin to racially segregated public schools that were the subject of the historic Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954. When Bob Jones University was accused of racism for its policy against inter racial dating, it lost its tax exempt status. There is little doubt that the tax exemption of churches and religious institutions will eventually be challenged on grounds that policies, practices and teachings regarding homosexuality violate public policy, just as Bob Jones’ dating policy did. Some of us have seen this coming ever since the Bob Jones case was decided in the early 1980s.
The hostility to individual conscience was evident in arguments presented to the California Supreme Court earlier this week in a case pitting the rights of a lesbian couple to receive artificial insemination services from a medical clinic against the rights of Christian doctors to refuse to provide services in violation of their conscience. Lawyers representing the lesbian couple argued that there simply is no religious defense to such discrimination. In other words, if they can prove discrimination, there is no balancing of the rights of conscience. The rights of conscience have no legal standing. The L.A. Times headline indicated that the court seemed likely to rule against the doctors. No court has yet considered the facts of this case, or whether the lesbian couple could have obtained the services in a timely manner without requiring these Christian doctors to violate their beliefs. But no such “win win” compromise is desirable to those advocating for “equality rights” of gays. Instead, equality must completely trump liberty.
According to lawyers for the doctors with whom I have discussed this case, the doctors informed their patients at the outset as to the limitations of the services they were willing to provide. They also informed the patients that should additional services be required, they would refer them to an alternate provider, and even pay any added costs incurred should the insurance not fully cover them. These were not emergency services, and the doctors claim to have acted responsibly to insure that their patients were able to obtain the services they desired in a timely manner. But none of this is relevant to the Court, or to those advocating for the patients. They want to destroy the rights of conscience. They insist on a ruling that religion doesn’t count at all, and that every business provider must serve gays, regardless of their religious beliefs.
The same law at issue in this case, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, is the subject of a pending case against Lutheran High School, challenging the expulsion of two lesbian students from a religious school. The trial court held that the Unruh Act does not apply to private schools, but the ruling has been appealed. You can readily see the problem should the courts decide that Unruh should apply to private and religious schools. Christian schools will lose the right to discipline students for sexual misconduct with others of the same sex.
The absurdity of the “equality” argument comes into sharp focus in this scenario. Consider that a Christian school could expel two heterosexual students for sexual misconduct without exposing itself to legal liability, but could not expel homosexual students for the same offense. This is what it means for gays to become a protected class. Instead of achieving equality, they achieve a superior status in society. A religious school would be able to fire a teacher for garden variety adultery, but it would be illegal to fire a gay teacher for the same offense.
Barry Bussey, Director of Public Affairs & Religious Liberty for the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada, has written most insightfully about this conflict between “equality” and religious freedom in the book: Politics and Prophecy.” The gay community has made “equality” the primary value, and has elevated it above liberty in general, and religious freedom in particular. The faith community has rejected this extreme view of “equality,” but has been equally hostile to the rights of gays. Bussey has thoughtfully analyzed the “winner-take-all” attitude of both sides in the marriage debate, in seeking to determine whether there was any hope of a middle ground, where the rights of gays and churches could co-exist. His conclusion was not optimistic.
Although we have long assumed that religious liberty enjoys a preferred status as a fundamental constitutional right, this has not been true either in California or the United States Supreme Court for nearly two decades. The Supreme Court practically discarded the First Amendment’s protection for the free exercise of religion as a “luxury that a well ordered society can no longer afford” in an infamous 1990 decision, Employment Division v. Smith. Although California has not explicitly followed suit, the California Supreme Court has ruled against religious liberty consistently, in a series of cases since 1995.
In 1995, the Court held that Evelyn Smith’s Presbyterian faith was not a good enough reason to refuse to rent one of her four duplex apartments to an unmarried [heterosexual] couple, despite the fact that in the same city of Chico, the State University maintained hundreds of units of housing exclusively for married couples. Such hostility to religious freedom interests has been the consistent theme of court rulings in California.
Californians will have the opportunity to reaffirm that marriage consists of a man and a woman in November, when a constitutional marriage amendment is expected to appear on the ballot. Although such a constitutional amendment may resolve the immediate issue of marriage, if successful, by reversing the court’s decision upholding gay marriage, it will do nothing to change the legal status of homosexuality as a fundamental right, given preferred status in California over the right to practice one’s faith.
There is an ancient Chinese curse: “may you live in interesting times.” It was considered a curse, because peace and prosperity were preferred over instability and excitement. Hold on for the ride! There is likely to be considerable turbulence ahead for religious liberty! Your support of the North American Religious Liberty Association, and our efforts to preserve liberty of conscience is needed now more than ever!
|
|
|
|
