Eight same-sex couples suing the state of Connecticut for the right to marry said Tuesday as the case opened that they are "cautiously optimistic" . . . The Washington state Supreme Court heard arguments on a case challenging Washington's ban on gay marriage last year, and a ruling could come as soon as this week . . . The New Jersey Supreme Court heard arguments this February in a case seeking marriage "equality" . . . New York State's highest court - the Court of Appeal - will hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriage this May. Finally, a case involving gay marriage is in a mid-level court in California and is expected to reach that state's high court next year.

Yet amazingly, a number of U.S. Senators do not believe there's a need for a U.S. Constitutional Amendment to preserve the institution of marriage as the union between one man and one woman.

Without the amendment, the debate now underway may well be short-circuited by the courts. Homosexual activist groups like the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, Human Rights Campaign, and the ACLU are perfectly happy to "shop" for liberal activist judges in targeted states until "gay marriage" and the entire homosexual agenda are accepted throughout the entire United States.

The vote in the U.S. Senate is currently scheduled for the week of June 5, 2006. Please take this simple step to help: sign this petition in support of passage of the Marriage Protection Amendment. We will deliver these petitions to your Senator prior to the vote. Let your voice be known. From FRC.

I am overwhelmed with offense by reading of Ford's active promotion of homosexual behavior and marriage.

They sell cars. Why should Ford get involved in such an explosive cultural issue? I do not know; but, the culture war rages on and Ford is taking a front seat.

Learn more about Ford's active promotion of homosexuality here. Feel free to steal a banner.

ST. PAUL, Minn. - The Easter Bunny has been sent packing at St. Paul City Hall. A toy rabbit, pastel-colored eggs and a sign with the words "Happy Easter" were removed from the lobby of the City Council offices, because of concerns they might offend non-Christians.

A council secretary had put up the decorations. They were not bought with city money.

St. Paul's human rights director, Tyrone Terrill, asked that the decorations be removed, saying they could be offensive to non-Christians.

But City Council member Dave Thune says removing the decorations went too far, and he wonders why they can't celebrate spring with "bunnies and fake grass."

Today the American Civil Liberties Union issued a press release which is featured on their website's "Newsroom" page that is titled, "ACLU Hails Rhode Island Department of Education Efforts to Stop the Use of Harmful "Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage" Curriculum in Public Schools". Only the ACLU and a liberal state like Rhode Island could find abstaining from sexual activity harmful.

The fact is that abstinence is the only form of birth control and STD prevention that works 100% that it is employed. By practicing the ultimate in safe sex, NO SEX, no children are unnecessarily slaughtered in the name of choice, no drugs are being used in order to prevent pregnancy for the sake of promiscuity, and no one will need to be treated for sexually transmitted diseases. So what is the ACLU's difficulty with teaching this effective form of birth control? Homosexuals in this nation cannot be married in any other state than Massachusetts. And no other state except Massachusetts recognizes marriages performed to same sex couples. If abstinence is taught as it should be, as the ONLY effective form of birth control and STD prevention, homosexuals will not be receiving the indoctrination that the ACLU believes that they should.

By accepting that teenagers are going to have sex before marriage and taking a position of defeatism in the war to prevent this from occurring, we are then telling teenagers to go ahead and have sex. This is akin to telling your child not to shop lift but if they are going to anyway to not get caught. Then teaching them methods on not getting caught as opposed to teaching them to just plain not do it.

Abstinence is not harmful, it is the only truly safe and healthy program out there. Condoms don't protect against Human Papilloma Virus or Herpes. Hormonal birth control don't protect against STDs and is only 92% effective (this means if you have sex 100 times, you have an 8% chance of getting pregnant even with the pill when taken as directed.). And we all know how many women forget to take the pills. Add to that the dangers when artificially changing the hormonal balance in a woman's system can lead to increased chances of cancer and heart disease.

Fact - Condoms break, leak, and do not protect against HPV or Herpes. Some people are have allergies to latex.
Fact - Birth Control Pills don't protect against STDs and mess with the hormonal balance in the woman's body.
Fact - Herpes is transmitted by skin contact and requires no fluid transfer.
Fact - A fetus is a living being called a baby not tissue or a parasite.
Fact - Abortion has been linked to increased occurrences of Breast Cancer.
Fact - Post abortive women experience a high rate of depression and repeat abortions.
Fact - Some risks associated with abortion include internal bleeding and infection.
Fact - The only way to avoid these complications is to not have sex and the ACLU calls teaching this fact harmful.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay or Gribbit. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 180 blogs already on-board

I enjoy the chain bookstores--which is where I am right now. In addition to the legal addictive stimulant that tries its best to stain my teeth and reveal my secret obsession with it, I enjoy sitting and watching people. Consider the older gentleman to my left who looks like the father of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts; or how about the girl who keeps leaving all of her belongings and walking away for several minutes at a time--doesn't she realize it's the 21st century? The gentleman directly in front of me is the image of the board of trustees chairman at my former college, I expect that he's a philosopher--at least he fits the bill.

I also enjoy chain bookstores for its ability to shock me back into reality. I grow tired of fighting battle after battle in the culture war. I can't fathom how people do it for a career! But, whenever I think the world is good enough and that I can just take a back seat, I just visit my local bookstore and peruse through some of the garbage that people write--and buy!

Hidden somewhere in this store containing roughly 300,000 titles lies an obscure shelf in a backroom upon which rests the ancients who are truly worth reading, such as Dante, Socrates, or Barth, collecting dust. Instead of being encouraged to read enduring works of literary art, we are overwhelmed with big signs marketing the contemporary issues made irrelevant with the passage of a few shorts years.

I don't suggest that anyone change what they are reading for enjoyment as I myself have recently read such frivilous works as David Frum's "The Right Man". In doing so, however, I recognize that it lacks the enduring value; it's no more than a neat story.

What I do suggest is balance between literature which fades and that which endures. Consider a few fading titles:

"American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century" -- The suggestion that somehow a 'god' is sitting on the throne of America is both a gross misunderstanding of what a theocracy is and an overstated hyperbolic suggestion of reality (admittedly, this is only one aspect of the book). The author is a present-tense historicist; meaning he writes as though the current reality is significant history before 'history' judges it as worthy. This, of course, is an exceedingly difficult thing to do and most who do it fail. How credible do you view a library text published in 1980 with the words, "modern", "emerging", or "latest" in the titles? This text will probably come and go along with the rest with little or no damage done to the conscience of America.

"The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason" Flipping through this text, I find a text possibly much more damaging to the conscience of the nation. Of course, I have strong disagreements with those of other religions of atheistic perspectives, however, the logical conclusion of the author's expressed values is an anarchy at best, or worse, a relativism creating a valueless, lazy, and apathetic class of people lacking even a pragmatic ethic.

To be sure however, I am not only critical of anti-faith books. The shelves are full of fuzzy, feel-good me-ology that lacks depth and insight. I am even more critical of them because the truth runs in them like a vein of gold through a mountainside, but you have dig through all of the refuse to reach it.

Then I visit the magazine section--geesh! With life changing so quickly, much of it is irrelevant even as it is published. The only thing that remains is special interest or racy magazines.

I estimate that less that 10% of the books here would add enduring value to a reader's life. Most of it is trash written by authors who aim to make the top-seller list and reap the rewards of our great capitalistic system. The remaining claim to represent the truth accurately and are important only as the exchange of ideas is important, but remains to be passing away. Which makes me ask myself, what endures? What endures? Interesting.

It also gives rise to another question: I wonder who may be blogging about me?

The ACLU has consistently opposed having prayer in public schools. But what truly constitutes prayer? How about a moment of silence where a student can say a Hail Mary or a small prayer, internally reflect, meditate, sleep, do homework, or just plain decompress and prepare for their day? Does this constitute prayer? I wouldn't think so.

Having a 2 -3 minute forced moment of silence at the beginning of the day to accommodate the personal religious convictions of children, or to allow them to do whatever they feel the need to do silently, is something that I think would be a good compromise to those who condemn the idea of prayer in schools.

Also keep in mind that the major objection to prayer in schools is the leftist idea of Separation of Church and State. There is NO mention of separation of church and state in the entire Constitution. It appears NO WHERE....Pay attention to the wording[of the establishment clause].

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I am convinced everyone who looks at that and thinks that a public school requiring children to stand for the pledge of alliegance and claims that this is a state endorsement of religion is on crack. Didn't anyone teach these people how to read?!?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Punctuation means something people. The founders didn't put that comma in there for it to look pretty. They also didn't mention Congress specifically in order apply this restriction to other governmental bodies. In the George Mason draft of the Bill of Rights, the establishment clause was better defined.

That Religion or the Duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by Reason and Conviction, not by Force or violence, and therefore all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable Right to the free Exercise of Religion according to the Dictates of Conscience, and that no particular religious Sect or Society of Christians ought to be favored or established by Law in preference to others.

To this point, no one arguing for the other side has successfully answered the question as to when a decision to allow a nativity scene in a public park or a school permitting a prayer at the opening of classes for the day constitutes action by the Congress. The Constitution specifically states that " Congress shall make no law…". It doesn't say that the Ashtabula City School District shall make no law or Millcreek Public School or the City of N. Platte, Nebraska, it says "Congress shall make no law… ".

So what constitutes prayer? I don't think a 2 -3 minute moment of silence or the Pledge of Allegiance are prayers.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay or Gribbit. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 150 blogs already on-board

UPDATE: JS SNUBS REPUBLICANS

How can the Republican Party further alienate itself from its conservative based?

[Here I attempted to find a modest picture of the answer but quickly realized my futility.] So, click here. My extreme disappointment in the Republican party is matched only by my distaste of the Democrat party.

Recently, I found out that a friend from college (my conservative, evangelical Christian college) was a blogger. A great guy; we served together on many committees. Last I heard he went to law school. But, as I perused his site I noticed a link to the Democratic Leadership Council. Examining closer, I saw enough to conclude, I have Christian friend who is a democrat.

I was obfuscated--deeply confused.

The inherent contradictions plagued my mind for days. What about abortion, euthanasia, and other life issues? Didn't he consider the DLC position on homosexual marriage and an unrestrained freedom to pursue licentiousness without responsibility? No doubt he was an intelligent guy, but I was perplexed...

...until I heard a sermon by Tony Evans (my favorite preacher heard here everday). He said that there are many Christians who are Democrats because they believe that Democrats more closely serve the social needs of society; serving the people being a biblical mandate. There many Christians who are Republicans because they believe that the Republican party will more closely vote in line with their social values. Despite the differences, God tells us to love one another. Not only so, but to consider others more highly than we consider ourselves.

Once I recovered, I began to consider my good friend's perspective (as I read about it on his blog) and realized that maybe I won't gather the church councils to condemn his heresy just yet. I agree with him that the church indeed has a responsibility to address the needs of the poor among us. We do have a responsibility to care for the homeless, widows, and orphans. Is the DLC the better party to do this? If so, does this outweigh the need to support legislators who more closely align with my conservative social values?

I haven't had to vote for any party just yet but don't anticipate a change; however, if the RNC keeps screwing up and fails to represent the conservative social needs of 'values voters', I foresee a third party endorsement.

It's possible that she was simply accepting an invitation to dinner. However, if the RNC plans to make Jessica Simpson their playboy bunny, well, bring on the third party.

This ad is in reality a declaration of war against the entire pro-family movement. The ad was paid for by the Campaign to Defend the Constitution or DefCon. Its advisory board includes the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, a former director of the ACLU, the former president of the pro-abortion group NARAL, and a number of "religious Left" leaders, including a homosexual pastor.

DefCon is a project of the Tides Center, a clearinghouse for liberal money, which according to its website has distributed "nearly $400 million to thousands of nonprofits" in the last ten years. The Tides Center is funding DefCon to "become the premiere voice of Americans who are disturbed by the growing power of the religious right..."

The goal of DefCon is to depress religious conservatives by smearing good men like Dr. Dobson. They want to bring down the pro-family movement in the fallout of the Abramoff scandal, hoping values voters won’t go to the polls in November. If they succeed, liberals will not have to filibuster judges because they will have a majority in the Senate. And the Marriage Protection Amendment will be dead on arrival in a House run by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco). This ad is another sign of how low the left wing will stoop. From One Million Dads.

I am simply in awe over the ACLU's arrogance and blatant disregard for American security. Islamic terrorist, should the ACLU ever hinder their goal of world dominance, would gladly kill ever single member; but somehow this is forgotten in their academic nonreality. Now, perhaps as a result of recent losses, their efforts to subvert the Constitution has been so confounded that they are relying on the corrupt UN for aid in fighting America:

The American Civil Liberties Union today criticized the United States for violating the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a major human rights treaty the U.S. ratified in 1992. In remarks to the 86th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the ACLU called for a rigorous investigation into violations of the treaty.

"In the name of national security, the Bush administration has eroded the rule of law and the system of checks and balances in the United States, both fundamental principles in any democracy," said Ann Beeson, Associate Legal Director of the ACLU, who presented today's testimony. "In our America, we will not tolerate illegal spying or torture. The ACLU calls on the Human Rights committee to join us in our effort to hold the U.S. government accountable."

In a statement read today at the opening session of the Human Rights Committee, the ACLU said: "In the last four years we have witnessed serious setbacks in the protection of civil and political rights within the United States. The U.S. government has instituted a number of unbalanced and unchecked policies that clearly undermine fundamental rights and liberties long recognized and honored in our country. These policies affect a broad range of issues, including women's rights, immigrants' rights, racial justice, national security and the freedom of religion and belief."

The ACLU also provided details in its testimony about remaining flaws in the recently reauthorized Patriot Act and on the illegal National Security Agency spying program.

"America cannot hold itself as a moral beacon to the world if it violates the rule of law by engaging in illegal spying, torture and secrecy," said Jamil Dakwar, an attorney with the ACLU Human Rights Working Group. "The ACLU is committed to making sure that our government complies with universally recognized human rights principles and upholds our Constitution."

One corrupt organization asking another corrupt organization to hold the U.S. responsible for Human Rights violations? What a joke!!! The U.N. can not even hold itself responsible for Human Rights violations.

Give me a break! We are fighting a war against some of the most brutal, and savage people in the world, ready to decapitate anyone that will not bend to their demented religious views. The ACLU defend these creatures in our Courts and abroad, and attempt to bring down our governments efforts to fight them from every angle. Is it not becoming more and more obvious that the ACLU's agenda for America is not in our best interest? One can easily argue that it sure feels like they are downright out to destroy us. I'm sick and tired of the far left's anti-American agenda. Wake up America before we fall from within.

Bravo to Stop the ACLU for this masterpiece.

Although Dentyne gum has not pulled the ad from its website, online visitors are no longer able to access the lesbian-kissing ad, as it is now marked "Under Construction." Thanks to your continued support of these issues, our efforts are working.

More information here.

"Mom, no offense, but I'd rather kill myself than be in a relationship where sex isn't the most important thing."

Who said it?
A 13 year old in a graphic television dialogue with her mother on ABC's Son's and Daughters. This twisted, harmful, and offensive view of sex is completely unacceptable for television, but is commonplace on this debase show.

One Million Dads describes these scenes:

"In one segment, the grandmother screams out to her husband in a bowling alley filled with children, "I've given you the best years of my life and lots of great sex."

"In another scene, ABC attacks people of faith. In the scene, a pre-school child condemns people of faith by stating, "I heard Aunt Rae tell grandmother we're going to hell...Hey grandma we're going to hell, 'cause we're Jews.

Attacking people of faith? Degrading family? Devaluing sex in marriage? Come on ABC!

Why is moral decency and values systematically being replaced by licentiousness? The conscience of television producers has been purchased by a few extra advertising dollars.

Hmmm.... Those who live by advertising dollars, die by advertising dollars in this great capitalistic system of ours. Thus, One Million Dads has created this link for those willing to contact advertisers. It's a piece of cake and takes two second.

On Wednesday, the California Supreme Court voted 6 to 1 to not force those convicted of having oral sex with underage kids to register as sex offenders with the state. The majority judges said that the law was "too harsh and unfair." Yes, I'm sure that the problem with such enforcement is the resolute "unfairness" of punishing those who know it is a crime and yet do it anyway. How terrible.

The judges justified their conclusion by citing the fact that under the state laws of California people convicted of having actual sexual intercourse with those who are 16 and 17 years of age are not forced to register as a sex offender. Their argument claims a lack of equal protection under the law.

So help me understand something. Because the laws are all screwed up about the sentencing of a crime that is even worse than the one that is committed, therefore we have to let those who commit serious crimes off easy? For some reason, there is an aversion to tough punishment in the liberal courts today.

Crossposted with Stop the ACLU

Reverend DL Foster proves that ROSMY (Richmond Organizations for the Sexual Minority Youth) is paying teens to go to gay clubs. This former homosexual--yes, former--is now being attacked by the NAACP. Huh?

The Independent Conservative explains this situation and reveals the tactics of far left.

Of course, I am completely thrilled by the actions of the South Dakota legislature to ban all abortions except where the life of mother is threatened. I am also thrilled by the momentum that is building in states like Missouri, Mississippi, and Tennessee who are moving towards abortion bans.

The significance of these decisions is not just an opportunity to overturn Roe; nor it is not just the fallback position should Roe be overturned the decisions left to the states. The real significance is found here: The decisions by state legislatures may be critical in overturning Roe. Here's why...

Chief Justice John Roberts, in his testimony before Congress, said this about overturning precedent:

I do think that it is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent. Precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and evenhandedness. It...is not enough that you may think the prior decision was wrongly decided....

And you do look at these other factors, like settled expectations, like the legitimacy of the court, like whether a particular precedent is workable or not, whether a precedent has been eroded by subsequent developments. All of those factors go into the determination of whether to revisit a precedent under the principles of stare decisis.

All other 'factors' aside, when state legislature pass laws banning abortion they are proving to the Supreme Court Justices that Roe is not a "settled expectation" in the minds of Americans. State legislatures are showing that over 33 years later, Roe is not a settled expectation. Comparatively, Brown v. Board of Education (decided in 1954) was well accepted by 1987.

So, what are we to do? Well, this morning I wrote my governor and state representatives this letter:

Dear

As momentum is building nationwide for tighter restrictions on abortion, I ask that you propose legislation banning all abortions except where the life in the mother is threatened. South Dakota lawmakers have passed such an abortion ban; Mississippi, Missouri, and now Tennessee, are proposing similar restrictions. Why not [**my state**]?

In the 33 years since the Roe decision, our understanding of life's beginnings have increased while the respect for life of all ages has eroded. You have the opportunity to communicate to the nation that [**my state**] values life.

In the event that Roe be overturned by the Supreme Court, it is important to know where our elected representatives stand. I ask that you propose legislation making our state the next to ride this wave of momentum banning abortions in all cases except for the where the life of the mother is threatened.

Sincerely,

Please use this letter (or your own) to contact your state representatives and governor. The best way to find their contact information is using Google and type: Contact (state) governor/legislator.

Trackbacked: Stop the ACLU

There is a lot of disappointment over at the ACLU. They have had a bad couple of days. Perhaps their momentum to radically alter the foundations of the nation and the Constitution upon which it was built is slowing. Let's hope so.

Take your pick.

House Renews Patriot Act, ACLU Disappointed

ACLU Says South Dakota's Ban On Abortion Will Endanger Women's Health and Lives

ACLU Expresses Disappointment Over Supreme Court Ruling in Military Recruitment Case

Intelligence Committee votes not to investigate NSA eavesdropping

You see, the ACLU can lose in the courts of the public opinion and even in the courts of law. Our most sacred duty as a nation is to care for that of which we have been entrusted in a manner that strengthens it for our posterity. We must fight the ACLU and resist their secular progressive agenda or we risk leaving our children with a country in ruins. We must fight them and never, ever relent.

Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Sir Winston Churchill, 1941, Harrow School

Linked: True Grit, News for Christians

Slowly, inch by inch, corporations are increasingly pushing the acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual marriage onto the public.

Dentyne has an on-line commercial in which they want the viewer to select the ending. This commercial will show you where Dentyne is headed with their advertising. To view this commercial, click here and then click on the bottom right square scene just to the left of the number 4 button. (Warning. This scene shows two lesbians passionately kissing. Those desiring not to see the commercial can simply skip the short video and proceed to the action section below.)

Sadly enough, this is where many companies are headed with their advertising.

The promotion of the homosexual lifestyle, and homosexual marriage, will continue until one advertiser feels the disgust in their pocketbook. Only then will all advertisers take notice of those who are fed up having the homosexual lifestyle pushed on them and their children.

Here's the letter I wrote:

Dear Chairman Sunderland and President Irwin,

I find your decision to market Dentyne chewing gum through the promotion of lesbian licentiousness to be morally disreputable. I ask that you pull the commercial from your web site. I am sick of companies such as yours continually pushing the homosexual lifestyle.

I'll never chew Dentyne gum again.

Sincerely,

Email your letter here.

Linked: WritingRight

"The University of Saskatchewan student newspaper, The Sheaf, has published a cartoon depicting Jesus performing oral sex on a pig with the caption reading, 'Go on, it's ok, it's kosher if you don't swallow'. The decision to publish the outrageously offensive 'Capitalist Piglet' cartoon comes after the same newspaper refused to print the cartoons mocking Mohammed out of respect for Islam." More here.

Remarkably blasphemous and hypocritical. This site has been established to promote the boycott of the paper.

"'Put that in your pipe and smoke it, ACLU,' said David Bennett, a preacher at the Dagsboro Church of Christ, when the announcement was made. "

Cheers of joy echoed through Sussex Central High School on Monday night when the Indian River School Board announced they would not pay a "six-figure" settlement to end prayer litigation.

The settlement could have ended litigation brought against the board in 2004 by Mona Dobrich, who complained about the inclusion of prayer at her daughter's graduation, and a second unnamed family, but board member Reggie Helms said he is willing to take a chance in court.

"My freedom of speech as a citizen is too important to compromise or risk its loss," he said. "Our court case, where we have been standing up to the ACLU, provides the opportunity for the federal government to permanently uphold my right not to be treated as a second class citizen, or to have to move to the back of the bus."

I thought that Mr. Helms made a great point for discussion. Are Christians being treated as second class citizens when it comes to their public expression of religion?

Crossposted with Stop the ACLU.

When starting to blog, I promised myself and my readers that I would always be reading more than I blogged (otherwise, new ideas would be absent from my thinking before age 40). Well, you can be assured that my obligation is being fulfilled. After finishing David Frum's "The Right Man," I went onto C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity." It was a good read (which is probably why is considered 'classic'). Now I'm on to, "The Heritage Guide to the Constitution." The 434-page legal guide analyzes the founding document line by line, its original intent as closely as can be discerned, and the relevant judicial decisions. A great read. When you add in the other blogs I read, the Bible, and devotional books I read, well, I'm definitely fulfilling my obligation. And, well, reading...it's what I'm doing tonight.

If I congratulate myself, it is called pride and selfishness; if Hollywood does it, it is called an Oscar, an Academy Award, or an Emmy.

As Hollywood pats itself on the back for practicing licentiousness , I am hoping they break an arm. Movies like Brokeback Mountain celebrate the moral degradation of America as men throw off the morals that bind negative activity and pursue selfish gratification and pleasure; in other words, by definition, hedonism.

Far from being a high grossing movie, BM only made 129 million compared to The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe's (just to pick one from the top of my head) 668 million. Yet, BM got the award. While the average American cares not about the Oscars, this celebration is telling.

Will celebrating movies like BM propel American toward hedonistic licentiousness OR will it backfire and further alienate Hollywood from average folk?

My guess: It won't end up mattering at all. More significant in America's downward moral spiral is the indoctrination students are receiveing in schools about the normalcy of same gender sexual preference. Why is this even in the curriculum? I don't really know but you can learn more about what's happening here.

Linked: Independent Conservative

"The ACLU of Eastern Missouri sues a school in a tiny populated town to prevent a free Gideon Bible distribution, according to this article.

This is one of those situations where the ACLU rides into a community with arguable limited financial resources and seeks to essentially bankrupt them by suits such as these. Knowing that schools with small populations are unlikely to fight in court, they are an easy target for the ACLU. And the fact that this school district is in a rural community means it is more likely that it is a conservative part of the state and an incentive for the ACLU to get the district to succumb to its agenda. Hopefully our good friends at the Alliance Defense Fund will be able to come to their aid and stand up to the ACLU.

Apparently a couple families don't like the Bible distribution which has been going on for some time. It would be understandable for the ACLU to intervene if the school forced the children of these two groups of parents to take a Bible against their wishes. But such was not the case.

The simple solution here would be to let the Bible distribution continue for those who wanted the Gideon Bibles. There was no basis for the ACLU to prevent all the students who want the Bibles to receive them simply because of two bully families who don't want them for their kids.

The ACLU says the chief objection was that the Bibles were distributed during class time. That may well be but that doesn't mean religious instruction was occurring during that time. If that's the case, what's the big deal? School classes often deviate from subjects taught and instructions to do a myriad of things from time to time. What's the problem handing Bibles out during that time? Would the ACLU sue if Heather Has Two Mommies was distributed during class time? I think we know the answer...

The ACLU likes to tout its defense of Christians and religious folks as they point out here without pointing out all the cases of religious expression they have legally assaulted. If the ACLU was truly about religious liberty, they would have told those two punk families that the children have a right to receive a Gideon Bible if they want it.

But typical ACLU, the tyranny of the minority prevails, at least for now. The ACLU is essentially denying the students the right to religious expression as ascertained from those who would have wished to receive the Bible.

In the meantime, if you live in or near Annapolis or Iron County or somewhere in Southeast Missouri or even elsewhere in the state, express your support for this school and tell them to stand up to the ACLU. Also, be sure to write U.S. Senators Talent and Bond as well as your Congressmen and state senators and representatives.

Contact information for the school can be found here.

Crossposted From Here.

The American Legion, with 2.7-million members the largest veterans organization in the world, has launched a nationwide grass-roots campaign to support a bill in Congress that would stop the ACLU from receiving taxpayer-paid attorney fees in the many religious-establishment cases against the Boy Scouts, the public display of the Ten Commandments and other symbols of America's religious history and heritage.

The Public Expression of Religion Act, or PERA, would amend the Civil Rights Attorney Fees Act to withdraw the authority of courts to award attorney fees, or damages, to the American Civil Liberties Union, or anyone else, in lawsuits brought under the Establishment of Religion clause in the First Amendment.

Generally unknown to the public, the ACLU has received enormous attorney fee awards from judges in Establishment Clause cases.

The American Legion argues that not a single judge, as far as is known, has exercised the court's discretion to deny the ACLU's motions for attorney fees – usually at $350 an hour – to be paid by taxpayers.

This has been done in spite of the fact that the ACLU has incurred no actual attorney expenses, because its lawsuits are handled by staff or volunteer lawyers.

The Legion says the ACLU has used the threat of attorney fees to intimidate cities, counties, school boards and other locally elected bodies into surrendering to its demands to remove religion from the public square.

Over a year and a half ago, when we first moved into our home, I called the cable company every two weeks for about three months to alert them that cable was still available though we were not paying for it. 6 times in three months we reported that we were still receiving able to watch cable, presummably from the last owner's contract. 18 months later, they have finally turned our cable off. Now, we get no television channels--none.

To entertain ourselves, my wife and I are left with the internet, many books, each other, our various hobbies, and a cute town, not to mention the angry married couple downstairs and the young girl's violin playing upstairs. How many hours have I spent watching television and what has come of it? Sure, there may have been a show every now and then that challenged my thinking or added the endless stream of information that flows into my sphere of thinking; but, now that it's gone, who cares?

Life is hard and dramatic enough without getting wrapped up into the emotionalism that television producers use to addict viewers and make money. Sure, I'm going through a little bit of withdrawl (I sat down today and clicked it on unconsciously), but my life just got a bit more simple.

Simplicity is grand thing. With it one has the ability to focus on what is most important, and accomplish great things without distractions. Without it accomplishing the most basic tasks becomes a struggle.

Large corporations used to bring in enthusiastic, inspirational consultants and strategic planners. They would spend hundreds of hours of human resources to create thick strategic plans that would end up sitting the shelf waiting for its replacement 5-10 years down the road. Now, these same consultants have rejected their previous key to unlock the future and replaced it with common sense, simplicity.

Their message: Do a few (3) things and acheive them. Don't get distracted by fads or the latest propagandists who really are only looking to make money. Everyone vies for your attention; stay focussed on the main thing. Simplicity.

I suppose the same is true for my life, our lives, too. What remains is only the task of deciding what things I will use my time to focus upon....luckily, I have one less option.

When I think of my priorities, several things come to mind. First, my relationship with God. This should not come as a surprise to anyone that the supreme author of creation should get the priority position.

Second, my wife. There is no person more special and worthy of my total devotion than her.

Third, other relationship to whom that Lord has given me including my family, my church, my friends, and community.

Fourth, the need to care for myself outside of which I would not be able to meet the priorities above. This includes eating right, staying fit, and getting sufficient sleep.

Fifth, the other tasks with which the Lord has entrusted me that fall outside of the above relationships. This might include work and blogging.

Needless to say that other priorities have come before blogging in the past several days. I like lists and, when of priorities, are helpful in determining what comes first. Every once and a while, I look at the 'stuff' of my day compared to this list of priorities to find that I'm all out of wack. When blogging or sleep comes before my wife, my community, or my relationship with the Lord--something has to change.

Priorities wouldn't be significant outside of time because whatever wouldn't be accomplished first wouldn't matter because second and first become irrelevant. Just as a fish doesn't understand what it is like to be wet (until it's beached, of course), without time priorities simply don't matter. Time itself is the great enemy of life for we all race against only to reach and end and die. So, if at the end we die, what is the value of priorities?

Stewardship. Life and the 'stuff' of life has been entrusted to us while all of heaven waits to see how we will respond. Those who have been given much are as vulnerable to poor stewardship as those who have been given little. It does not matter, in term of eternity, whether we now have little or much; what matters is how we use what we have been given.

I have had a lot of time over that past 6 months. I've used very little of it wisely. Why? Blogging. With the exception of a little break near Christmas, I wrongly invested this wealth of time in the pleasure of blogging.

Blogging is not bad to be sure. But when I act toward blogging like I acted towards my wife just before we were married, as a priority, it's a bit misplaced. Before my wife and I were married, I thought about her, mediated on her, desired to know more about her; when I was away from her I was thinking about her, when I was with her I was immersed in her, etc. Obviously, when I obsess over blogging like this, it has becomes quite the misplace priority.

Who do I offend when I misplace my priorities? Some might say, "No one. Do what you want for your own pleasure and forget about the rest." But I, and other Christians, reject this hedonism. When I misplace my priorities, I offend the one who have given me my time; the Lord. Consider the boy who loves playing with his Christmas present his mom gave him but neglects his mom's request to clean his room. Life exists with responsibilities and discipline ought to follow the child whose priorities has offended his responsibility to the one who gave the gift.

See, I hope to only have 5 or 6 decades left; but, in reality, it could all end much sooner--for you too. At the end of it all, I don't want to have wasted my life on blogging or by investing in the things on the bottom of the priority list. From a strictly utilitarian perspective, it wouldn't make sense to flip the priority list upside down--but there's more.

I don't want to have offended the one who have me the time that I have. I want to be a good steward with the time, money, relationships, and faith that I have been given. No, I don't have a lot; but that which I do have, I am asking the Lord to help me to use in a manner that pleases him--the giver.