Christian News from Christians Unite.

[Shammu]

Marriage Amendment -- Baptists on Sunday, Bush on Monday

by Allie Martin, Jody Brown, and Rusty Pugh
June 2, 2006

(AgapePress) - - Southern Baptist pastors are being encouraged this weekend to preach about the necessity of a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage. The legislative matter is scheduled to come before the U.S. Senate for debate and a vote next week.

The Marriage Protection Amendment (S.J. Res. 1) has 32 co-sponsors, all Republicans. The amendment states, in part, that marriage in the U.S. "shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman" and that neither the U.S. Constitution nor any state's constitution shall confer the legal incidents of marriage on any other type of union.

Because the measure deals with amending the U.S. Constitution, it must be approved by two-thirds of the Senate, and then two-thirds of the U.S. House, before going to individual states for consideration. Three-fourths of the states -- 38 of them -- would then have to ratify the measure.

Pro-family and faith-based groups across the country have been urging their supporters to contact their senators and encourage them to vote for the MPA. Among those groups is the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), which has dubbed June 4 as "Marriage Protection Sunday" throughout its churches in an effort to encourage Southern Baptists to learn more about the threat to biblical marriage posed by same-sex unions.

Kenyn Cureton is vice president for convention relations with the Executive Committee of the SBC. He says pastors have an obligation to educate their congregations about the necessity of protecting traditional marriage.

"They need to take the lead in equipping their churches to become what Jesus asks us to be," he explains. "That is, the salt that stings and then heals, and also the light that shines [as] the only way that's hope for America, and that's Jesus. And so if the pastors will take the lead in equipping the congregations, then I think the congregations will rise up and let their voices be heard on this matter."

It is vital for Christians to get involved with the issue, asserts Cureton. "All you need to do is look at Scandinavia to see what is going to happen in America if we allow the definition of marriage to be changed," the SBC official says, continuing to explain what has happened in that country.

"In Scandinavia for the last ten years or so, maybe fifteen, they've allowed de facto gay marriage. As a result, in some places in Norway upwards of 80 percent of the children are being born into homes without a legally married mom and dad, [who are] just cohabiting."

Massachusetts is the only U.S. state to have legalized same-sex marriage. But state supreme courts in New Jersey, New York, and Washington could legalize such unions before the end of the year. Six states -- Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin -- are considering state marriage amendments this fall.

It's Not All Rosy from the White House
Interestingly, at no point in the formal federal constitutional amendment process does the U.S. president play a role. The president can veto neither an amendment proposal nor a ratification. Yet the president's opinion on the matter can carry great influence -- and that is why a pro-family leader in Virginia is bothered by President Bush's apparent reluctance to use his bully pulpit to rally support for the MPA.

President Bush is scheduled to deliver a speech in the nation's capital on Monday, where he is expected to voice his support for the Marriage Protection Amendment. But Joe Glover, president of the Family Policy Network, says the fact that the president has waited until the day before the Senate votes to speak on the issue shows the president does not care. Bush, he says, "hasn't lifted a finger" to push the MPA.

"He hasn't twisted any arms, he hasn't made any deals, he hasn't been pushing senators to support defining marriage as between a man and a woman," Glover states. "And [yet] he thinks that he can hold one speech ... the day before the vote, which is a clear expression of weakness, and appease conservatives as if he's done something significant."

The pro-family activist notes that the president worked for months on issues such as Social Security and the Medicare prescription drug entitlement, "which conservatives didn't even like." Glover adds. "But for marriage he gives us one speech ... the day before and expects us all to be pleased with it."

In addition, Glover reports that the venue for Bush's speech on Monday -- originally to take place in the White House Rose Garden -- has been moved to a room in the Eisenhower Building. He suggests the change in location as another indication of the administration's lackluster support for the amendment. "They've moved it to the back of the bus," he says.

Glover feels that Bush's lack of concern for protecting traditional marriage is a slap in the face of conservative Christians who helped elect him. And it is ironic, he adds, that First Lady Laura Bush made the comment recently that protecting marriage should not be a campaign issue, when the issue was a key part of the Republican platform in 2004.

http://news.christiansunite.com/Religion_News/religion04547.shtml

Additional information on ChristiansUnite.com is available on the Internet at http://www.christiansunite.com/

[Shammu]

Circuit Court Sends 'Textbook Sticker' Case Back to Lower Court

by Jim Brown
June 1, 2006

(AgapePress) - - A federal appeals court has refused to rule on a lower-court decision that forced a suburban Atlanta school district to remove disclaimers about evolution from its science textbooks.

A three-judge panel of the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court decision because of an insufficient factual record. However, the Eleventh Circuit did not rule on the constitutional merits of Judge Clarence Cooper's January 2005 decision, which ordered the Cobb County School District to remove from about 35,000 biology textbook stickers that read, in part: "Evolution is a theory, not a fact ...."

Byron Babione is a senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case.

"The sticker should have been perfectly constitutional," Babione contends. "In other words, it had a secular purpose -- it didn't advance any one or particular religion, and it didn't entangle government excessively with religion." Instead, says the attorney, it "simply promoted critical analysis with respect to the theory of evolution, as critical analysis is promoted with respect to any scientific theory."

Babione says although Judge Cooper said the disclaimers were motivated by an improper religious purpose, his ruling relied in part on a parental letter received by the school district after it had already put the stickers in the textbooks. According to the ADF attorney, the participation of Christians in the political process should not determine whether a law is constitutional.

"Whether you're a Christian or not a Christian, or whatever the worldview is that you subscribe to, under the Constitution you're allowed to participate in the political process," Babione says. "And I don't think district courts should be in the business of saying, 'Well, who was it that was trying to influence their legislatures? Were they from this religious group or were they not from that religious group?' That shouldn't even matter."

The stickers read, in full: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

Parents who sued the school district over the stickers argue the disclaimers violate the so-called "separation of church and state." But ADF contends no school should be prevented from just stating facts. In fact, says Joel Oster, another ADF attorney, "that's what schools are supposed to do."

http://news.christiansunite.com/Religion_News/religion04543.shtml

Additional information on ChristiansUnite.com is available on the Internet at http://www.christiansunite.com/

[Shammu]

Leftist Church Official Does Not Speak for UMC, Renewal Advocate Says

by Jim Brown
June 1, 2006

(AgapePress) - - A Protestant renewal group is denouncing a United Methodist Church (UMC) official over his call for the impeachment of President George W. Bush.

Jim Winkler, head of the United Methodist Board of Church and Society, recently addressed the Ecumenical Advocacy Days for Global Peace and Justice, telling the gathering of liberal religious activists in Washington that President Bush should be impeached for mounting "an illegal war of aggression" against Iraq that was "sold on lies."

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are both members of the UMC. Winker went on to fault the president and his administration for not being aggressive enough in supporting global warming theory and other liberal causes. The United Methodist official also referred to the war on terror as "a war of terror" and called American intelligence agencies "the secret police."

According to Mark Tooley, director of the United Methodist Committee at the Institute of Religion and Democracy (IRD), Winkler considers impeaching Bush to be a religious imperative. However, the church renewal advocate does not believe Winkler truly speaks for most of his denomination's members with regard to church or political matters.

"Those on the religious left who deny or at least diminish some of the key, core doctrines of Christianity tend to view politics instead of those core doctrines of Christianity as more essential," Tooley asserts. "So it's not surprising," he says, "that Winkler would call a particular political initiative like impeaching the President part of advancing his notion of the kingdom of God."

But despite Bush's low approval ratings, Tooley believes most of the UMC's eight million members would find the UM Board of Church and Society leader's call for the impeachment of the President out of line. In fact, the Protestant renewal advocate thinks many church members would have problems with the way the denomination's resources are being used by church officials in their efforts to advance several leftist political causes.

The IRD's United Methodist Committee spokesman says he is confident the vast majority of Methodists would take issue with "the fact that we have a fulltime lobby office in Washington, DC, on Capitol Hill that pushes for a whole range of liberal issues." He is also confident, he says, "that the vast majority of Methodists -- even many of those who are themselves liberal -- would find that inappropriate for the church."

Winkler would make a good spokesman for a left-wing political action organization like MoveOn.org, Tooley asserts. However, he says the liberal UMC official definitely "does not represent the mainstream opinion in the denomination for which he purports to speak."

http://news.christiansunite.com/Religion_News/religion04544.shtml

Additional information on ChristiansUnite.com is available on the Internet at http://www.christiansunite.com/

[Shammu]

Plaintiffs Target Companies Marketing Junk Food to Kids

by Ed Thomas
June 1, 2006

(AgapePress) - - Two public-interest advocacy groups and two Boston-area parents have filed a notice of intent to sue Nickelodeon's parent company and Kellogg Foods in a Massachusetts court. Lawyers for the plaintiffs and defendants are still negotiating to try to avoid the filing of the lawsuit over the marketing of junk food during children's programming.

The notice of intent to file suit against Kellogg, the Nickelodeon network, and its owner Viacom was submitted in January following the release of a report from the Institute of Medicine connecting food product TV commercials and child health. The report showed a link between advertising aimed at kids and their unfortunate preferences for foods high in caloric content and low in nutrition.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, and Massachusetts parents Sherri Carlson and Andrew Long are the plaintiffs in the case. The two groups and the two individuals object to companies' constant marketing of food products during children's shows and want the court to put a stop to the onslaught.

The same cartoon show characters that kids are tuning in to watch are being used to sell empty them calorie food products during commercials, Long asserts. And what is being pushed to these growing youngsters, he says, is "basically junk food -- high fat, high sugar content, nutritionally poor food."

And Susan Linn of Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC) notes that the power of advertising over impressionable youngsters is tremendous -- wielding far more influence over them than over adults. In the Institute of Medicine's end-year 2005 study, she notes, researchers did a thorough review of all the literature on food marketing and childhood obesity, "and they came to the conclusion that food marketing affects children's food choices, their food preferences, their food requests and their diets."

Part of the reason for the powerful effect of food marketing on children, Linn points out, is that the younger viewers -- particularly those under the age of eight -- that are being targeted by food company's television ads are generally not capable of understanding that they have a choice. They do not know they can elect not to follow advertisers' suggestions, she says.

"Until the age of eight," the CCFC spokeswoman explains, "children can't understand persuasive intent; so the thought is that if they don't understand the fundamental basis of advertising, how can we expect them to defend against it?" That is why the lawsuit her group and the other plaintiffs are considering would specifically ask the court to prevent marketing through media venues aimed at children under age eight.

The plaintiffs want Kellogg, Nickelodeon, and Viacom enjoined from marketing to children under eight in certain media venues and with certain products. Dr. Linn says the companies are currently in negotiation with her group and the other parties to try to work out a compromise agreement.

http://news.christiansunite.com/Religion_News/religion04545.shtml

Additional information on ChristiansUnite.com is available on the Internet at http://www.christiansunite.com/

[Shammu]

Boycott of Ford Impacting Automaker

by AFA Journal
June 2, 2006

(AgapePress) - - As the boycott of the Ford Motor Company picks up steam, the automaker continues to help finance homosexual organizations pushing same-sex "marriage."

More than 20 pro-family groups are currently boycotting Ford, which also makes Jaguar, Volvo, Land Rover, Mazda, Lincoln and Mercury. The American Family Association, which initiated the boycott, has learned that Ford dealers recently met with corporate officials, and the boycott's effect on sales was the major topic of discussion.

In fact, while Ford's financial difficulties are not new, the company's woes appear to be accelerating. The automaker's sales dropped 5 percent in March and 7 percent in April, and Ford's stock has dropped more than 14 percent since the boycott began, reaching the lowest price in nearly 20 years.

"We've said all along that Ford should be concentrating on making better automobiles, rather than getting in the middle of the culture war," AFA chairman Don Wildmon says. "The latest round of bad economic news seems to bear this out."

Instead, Ford continues to risk alienating consumers by its enthusiastic support of the homosexual agenda. For example, the automaker is financially supporting the Motor City Pride event in Ferndale, Michigan, scheduled June 2-4. The homosexual celebration includes a same-sex "commitment ceremony," which the organizers admit is being held to "make a political statement."

The company also continues to fund homosexual political groups to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Ford has sponsored the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation; Human Rights Campaign; Gay, Lesbian Straight Education Network; and Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, among others. All of these organizations are vigorously promoting the legalization of same-sex marriage in the U.S.

At the same time all this has been happening, Ford seems more concerned about what homosexual activists are thinking than pro-family consumers. For example, in April the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) denied a request by Ford to keep a shareholder resolution pertaining to homosexual marriage off the agenda at their shareholders meeting May 11.

The resolution, which shareholders voted down, simply requested "that Ford Motor Company amend its written equal employment opportunity policy to exclude any reference to privacy issues related to sexual interests, activities or orientation."

One reason cited by Ford in their request to the SEC was that the company did not want to face a possible boycott by homosexual groups.

"I find Ford's logic in asking the SEC to omit the resolution interesting," says Wildmon. "Ford is saying that they are concerned that the resolution would anger homosexual groups who might then boycott the company, but they did not fear the boycott by the pro-family groups. I think consumers will show Ford just how wrong the company is."

http://news.christiansunite.com/Religion_News/religion04550.shtml

Additional information on ChristiansUnite.com is available on the Internet at http://www.christiansunite.com/

[Shammu]

Study Shows Parents Giving Tots Too Much TV Time

by Mary Rettig
June 1, 2006

(AgapePress) - - A child and family psychologist for Focus on the Family says it is troubling that. According to one study, today's parents seem to believe the television and other media can be a good babysitter for very young children.

Focus on the Family's Dr. Bill Maier says a recent Kaiser Family Foundation study shows parents sometimes rely on media to occupy their infant and toddler children while the adults do other chores. However, he points out, child health experts have warned that parents of children within that age range against exposing them to TV this early.

"The American Academy of Pediatrics came out with a very strong recommendation about two years ago, telling American parents that children under two should not be exposed to any sort of television, Maier notes, "and yet, if you look at the Kaiser Foundation report, 61 percent of babies one year or younger watch TV, in a typical day, an average of an hour and 20 minutes."

And among slightly older children, the psychologist reveals, the numbers are even more alarming. "Ninety percent of 4- to 6-year-olds watch TV, in a given day, for an average of two hours," he says.

"Here we have the nation's largest child health organization telling us two years ago that kids under two shouldn't be watching television at all," Maier laments, "and yet this huge number of children are doing just that." But although he thinks allowing the TV to "baby-sit" while adults do other things is an immature and selfish trend, he emphasizes that he does not believe most parents are uncaring, only uninformed.

"I think a lot of it boils down to a lack of knowledge about child development," the child and family issues expert says. "And many parents are just so busy, they don't take the time to read articles and keep up with the news about what's good and bad for kids."

Many mothers and fathers believe exposure to television and DVDs can be helpful to their children's learning and development, Maier notes. However, he says these parents are forgetting that long hours spent sitting in front of a screen can contribute to childhood obesity and other health and developmental problems.

http://news.christiansunite.com/Religion_News/religion04546.shtml

Additional information on ChristiansUnite.com is available on the Internet at http://www.christiansunite.com/

[Shammu]

ADF Appeals Liberal Judges' Ruling in Christian Student's Censorship Case

by Jim Brown
June 2, 2006

(AgapePress) - - A pro-family attorney says a San Diego school district violated the free-speech rights of a California high school student by prohibiting him from expressing his Christian viewpoint against homosexuality.

In 2004, the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) filed a lawsuit challenging the Poway School District's decision to suspend student Chase Harper for wearing a Christian T-shirt. Harper's shirt bore the phrases "Homosexuality is shameful" and "Our school embraced what God has condemned."

Recently, two judges with the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the U.S. Constitution does not permit Harper to wear the shirt. ADF, a pro-family legal defense organization, is appealing the ruling.

Harper's attorney, Tim Chandler, says the school district practices viewpoint discrimination against Christians who speak out on issues such as homosexuality and illegal immigration. He says this is accomplished through policies that the school has in place, which purportedly ban any speech that is negative or offensive.

Chandler feels Poway School District's officials are doing a disservice by creating an atmosphere of oppression and bias rather than academic freedom and open debate. "Basically what they're trying to do is create this perfect, politically correct campus," he says, "but in doing so, they've basically excluded any debate on campus, particularly on these important issues."

And unfortunately, the attorney points out, the Ninth Circuit that recently ruled on the case has a history of censoring conservative expression. "They've been incredibly hostile to Christians in a number of different rulings ranging from the Pledge of Allegiance to parents' rights and now to students' speech rights," he says.

However, Chandler is hopeful that the prior ruling by the two liberal Ninth Circuit judges can be overturned on appeal. He says in that decision the judges did not take into consideration that California state law gives students substantially more free-speech rights on campus than the First Amendment does. Now ADF is asking a 15-judge panel of the infamous court to reverse the earlier ruling prohibiting Harper from wearing his T-shirt and expressing his faith-based viewpoint opposing homosexuality.

Chandler says ADF is confident of a positive outcome in the appeal. The previous ruling in this free-speech case, he asserts, was "so outrageous and so unprecedented that we are confident that even the Ninth Circuit can get this one right."

http://news.christiansunite.com/Religion_News/religion04548.shtml

Additional information on ChristiansUnite.com is available on the Internet at http://www.christiansunite.com/

[Shammu]

Mahoney Hails City's Vote to Appeal Mt. Soledad Cross Removal Order

by Allie Martin
June 2, 2006

(AgapePress) - - The San Diego City Council has agreed to appeal a federal judge's ruling ordering the removal of a cross from the top of a war memorial in La Jolla, California. The 5-3 vote directs the city attorney to file the appeal with the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The long legal battle over the Christian symbol's inclusion in the monument began 17 years ago when an atheist sued the City of San Diego, claiming that having the cross on city-owned property violated the U.S. Constitution.

Since then, judges have overruled efforts by the city to sell land surrounding the memorial to private groups. And last month, U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson ordered city officials to remove the cross from its place atop Mount Soledad within 90 days or else face heavy fines.

Pat Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, has been a vocal advocate for those seeking to preserve the Mount Soledad cross. He says the courts that have been involved in the matter are misguided about the legality of the symbol.

"The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion," Mahoney contends. "It's important for us to stand and say, 'We have to resist this kind of tyranny.'"

Last July, 76 percent of San Diego voters approved Proposition A, a measure that would have allowed the city to transfer the Mount Soledad cross to the National Park Service so it could be designated a national war memorial. A judge, however, ruled that vote invalid. Mahoney believes such misguided rulings are creating bad precedent.

"People say you have to obey the rule of law and the law," he says. "My response to them is, 'What law has been broken?' This cross has been here for 54 years. Are we now to remove the crosses in Arlington cemetery or the crosses from military medals that have been given for years?"

Mahoney applauds the City of San Diego's decision to appeal Judge Thompson's removal order. The Mount Soledad cross is the centerpiece of a treasured war memorial and local landmark, Mahoney says, and he is pleased that the city will continue its legal battle to keep it in place.

http://news.christiansunite.com/Religion_News/religion04549.shtml

Additional information on ChristiansUnite.com is available on the Internet at http://www.christiansunite.com/

[Shammu]

Legal Group Prefers Competition on the Field, Not in Courtroom

by Allie Martin
June 2, 2006

(AgapePress) - - Four public school districts in Virginia are reversing an earlier decision and now will schedule athletic events with a well-known private Christian school.

Earlier this year the athletic director for Liberty Christian Academy (LCA) was informed by representatives of eight public school districts that the private school was no longer welcome to take part in training camps, practice competitions, or any other regularly scheduled sporting events. Soon after LCA responded in writing to those districts threatening legal action, the school learned that district athletic directors and coaches had been instructed during a meeting by some of the boycott leaders not to schedule games with LCA -- and that if they did, they too would be boycotted.

Florida-based Liberty Counsel authored the letter sent to the districts. The legal group's chairman, Mat Staver, says four districts have now had a change of heart.

"It's one thing to not play another school," Staver says, "[but] it's another thing to participate in an intentional, illegal boycott targeting a particular school and essentially trying to shut down the athletic program. As a result, now four school districts have publicly distanced themselves and are backing away from the boycott, and we're very pleased with that."

The four districts that have agreed to schedule games with LCA are located in Pittsylvania, Appomattox, Bedford, and Campbell counties. The original eight also included Nelson, Prince Edward, and Amherst counties and the City of Lynchburg. Staver says Liberty Counsel is still waiting to hear from them.

"We're ... calling on the remaining four to stop their religious bigotry and to break away from this boycott or face the consequential actions that will happen in a civil courtroom," the attorney says. "We would much rather play them and compete against them on the playing field than in the courtroom."

Staver is hopeful the truth will come to light. "As one school district after another comes forward and is willing to schedule games, it becomes clear -- as we have always suspected -- where the boycott for originated," he says, adding his legal firm will continue to pursue the matter until every district decides to "play fair."

For decades, LCA -- which was founded by Dr. Jerry Falwell -- has participated in athletic competition, training camps, and other events with student athletic teams from high schools in the eight districts. Staver says lawsuits likely will be filed against any of the remaining public school districts that ban the Christian academy from competitions.

http://news.christiansunite.com/Religion_News/religion04551.shtml

Additional information on ChristiansUnite.com is available on the Internet at http://www.christiansunite.com/

[Shammu]

Liberals Dominate Graduation Lecterns Again, Says Study

by Jim Brown
June 2, 2006

(AgapePress) - - Most of the country's top colleges and universities once again chose liberal figures to speak at their graduation ceremonies this year.

A study by the Virginia-based Young America's Foundation (YAF) reveals that commencement addresses at America's top schools this year were dominated by "Democratic Party officials, leftist activists, and members of the old media." According to the Foundation, for the thirteenth year in a row, "commencement organizers chose the Tom Brokaws over the Sean Hannitys, the Marian Wright Edelmans over the Thomas Sowells, and the Desmond Tutus over the Antonin Scalias."

Dr. Jerry Falwell is chancellor of Liberty University, an evangelical school that had Arizona Senator John McCain deliver its commencement address this year. He says liberal political bias and a lack of intellectual diversity are staples on university campuses.

"Communism is dead in the Soviet Union, but I think it's alive and well on most American campuses -- or at least an anti-American philosophy," says Falwell. "The Ward Churchills are everywhere," he adds, a reference to the controversial, liberal professor from the University of Colorado.

Falwell shares that Liberty University offers Christian students an alternative to universities pervaded by liberal thought. The school, he explains, is unique in that it is committed to an inerrant Bible, the deity of Christ, America, freedom, and the free enterprise system.

"Liberty is different," he states. "We don't allow alcohol, drugs, tobacco, no coed dorms, and we don't have one single liberal professor. We discriminate against that just as Harvard and company discriminate against conservative faculty -- and we acknowledge it, and they don't."

The YAF survey also found several schools held separate graduation ceremonies for homosexual and black students.

http://news.christiansunite.com/Religion_News/religion04552.shtml

Additional information on ChristiansUnite.com is available on the Internet at http://www.christiansunite.com/

[Shammu]

California Assemblyman Refuses to Attend Speech by Mexico's President

by James L. Lambert
June 2, 2006

(AgapePress) - - One week ago Mexican President Vicente Fox addressed the California State Legislature. California State Assemblyman Ray Haynes, however, was not in attendance. The Republican from Temecula decided to personally boycott the event because of his deeply held beliefs on what he felt was really occurring that day.

Haynes, a long-time friend of conservatives, commented this week he felt that Fox "was there for the sole purpose of trying to change U.S. immigration policy." The California Assemblyman said that the Mexican president "came to California to promote amnesty for the Mexican nationals that have broken our laws." The Assemblyman added he found Fox's presence in Sacramento for that purpose to be "arrogant and offensive."

The California lawmaker further substantiated his reason for boycotting President Fox's speech.

"[President Fox] has continually complained about our [immigration] policy, openly questioned the legality of Bush putting the National Guard units on the border, and even complained when Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill which would have given California driver's licenses to illegal aliens," stated Haynes.

The Assemblyman also contends that over the last several years, Fox has encouraged Mexican citizens to enter the U.S. illegally because, in many ways, it benefits his country.

"When his citizens come to California, our taxpayers pick up their medical bills, pay for their education, food, clothing and housing," Haynes said. "In return, these Mexican citizens usually take most of their earnings and send them back to Mexico."

Such a relationship, he added, is "all to Mexico's benefit -- and not much help to California."

Consequently, Haynes saw no reason why he should sanction a visit from the Mexican president and listen to what he described as "lies and propaganda."

"Why should I ... listen to the president of Mexico [asking] us to pay for his social problems?" he stated. "He should go back to Mexico, fix his economy, fix his corrupt government, and quit sending us his social problems."

Haynes' term in the State Assembly is set to expire at the end of this year. He is currently running for a seat on the State Board of Equalization. California's primary election is slated for June 6.

http://news.christiansunite.com/Religion_News/religion04553.shtml

Additional information on ChristiansUnite.com is available on the Internet at http://www.christiansunite.com/

[Shammu]

As Senate Takes Up Marriage Debate, Religious Leaders Urge Support for MPA

by Allie Martin and Jenni Parker
June 5, 2006

(AgapePress) - - The founder of the American Family Association (AFA) says U.S. Christians concerned about the influence of homosexual activists on their society need to contact their senators regarding the proposed federal marriage amendment.

Tomorrow (June 6) the U.S. Senate begins debate on the proposed constitutional amendment that would define marriage as valid only between a man and a woman. To become law, the amendment needs two-thirds support in the U.S. Senate and House and then would have to be ratified by 38 state legislatures. Senators are expected to vote on the proposal later this week.

Opponents of the marriage protection measure say a federal amendment is not needed because the definition of marriage is an issue of state's rights. Supporters of the amendment, however, say banning same-sex "marriage" is necessary not only to preserve the traditional understanding of marriage but also to protect children, families, and society as a whole.

In a radio address Saturday, President George W. Bush noted that "marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious, and natural roots" without undermining its cultural benefits. "Ages of experience have taught us," the president remarked, "that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society."

The chief executive also observed that activist judges and local officials have made what he called "an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage in recent years." However, he said state marriage protection laws and amendments across America have indicated "broad consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage" against such redefinition.

As Senate takes up the marriage issue, pro-family activist and AFA founder/chairman Don Wildmon is encouraging his fellow evangelicals to take action. "It's critical right now," he says, "for everyone who believes marriage should be between one man and one woman to call their two senators and say, 'I want you to vote for the Marriage Protection Amendment; and, if you vote against it, in essence you're voting for homosexual marriage.'"

�   
Dr. Don Wildmon
Wildmon is concerned that, without a federal Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA), judicial activists will be able to nullify marriage laws across America on a state-by-state basis. "Changing the Constitution is not an easy process," he says, "nor should it be; but at least we're going in the right direction. If we don't have this constitutional amendment, we're going to find one activist federal liberal judge who's going to strike down every marriage law in this country."

However, people must get involved before it is too late, the AFA spokesman warns. "It's extremely important that people call their senators and ask them to vote for the Marriage Protection Amendment," he says. "The MPA is the only way that the sacred institution of marriage will remain between one man and one woman."

Religious Objections to Gay Marriage Treated as Bigotry?
And Professor Robert George, a Princeton University constitutional scholar and co-founder of the Religious Coalition for Marriage, points to another danger to be avoided. In a recent Associated Press interview, he noted that if homosexual marriage is legalized, individuals who believe in traditional marriage could be treated as bigots and their religious views on homosexual marriage could be subject to attack -- and possibly even prosecution.

"Marriage is between a man and a woman, and only one of each," George contends. "If that is legally now defined as a prejudicial view -- a form of discrimination, a form of bigotry -- then it will be attacked by the law in the same way that racial bigotry is attacked in the law now," he says.

Also, the professor adds, "If we go down the route of same-sex marriage, that will be what is taught to children in schools against their parents' wishes." Schools will teach children to accept and support homosexual marriage, he explains, "even if their parents are strong believers in the traditional, conjugal conception, whether they are Protestants, Catholics, observant Jews."

A diverse community of traditional marriage supporters could be affected if the push to legalize same-sex marriage succeeds, George asserts. The Religious Coalition for Marriage alone includes members of the Southern Baptist Convention, the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the Pentecostal Church of God in Christ, the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church, and the Orthodox Jewish community.

Americans who support traditional marriage, including countless people of faith like those represented by the Religious Coalition for Marriage, may be forced to accept homosexual marriage regardless of their religious beliefs, Professor George warns, unless the U.S. Constitution is amended to protect traditional marriage.

http://news.christiansunite.com/Religion_News/religion04554.shtml

Additional information on ChristiansUnite.com is available on the Internet at http://www.christiansunite.com/

[Shammu]

Patrick Henry College's New Leader Laments Lost Faculty's Exit

by Jim Brown
June 5, 2006

(AgapePress) - - The new president of Patrick Henry College in Virginia is speaking out about the recent resignation of nearly a third of the evangelical school's full-time professors. The five instructors recently quit PHC, accusing Mike Farris of limiting their academic freedom and disparaging their Calvinist beliefs.

Replacing Farris as president next month is Dr. Graham Walker, Ph.D., former vice president for academic affairs and dean of Oklahoma Wesleyan University. The new president says he is troubled over some of the actions of the five professors that resigned and is, in particular, "a little grieved that some of the dissatisfactions felt by the departing faculty members were, with some students, pretty thoroughly aired and discussed."

Walker says he would have no objections to theological disputes, discussions, or debates taking place among members of the academic community. "The problem was that this was not primarily a theological issue," he says. "Ultimately it didn't pivot on that at all. It was a personnel issue."

The incoming PHC president insists that, despite what the departing professors may claim, Patrick Henry College is committed to being a complex fellowship of evangelical people with different theological points of view. He says he wishes the professors who resigned "had persisted in the dialogue that President Mike Farris sought to undertake with them."

Walker says the five professors published a few statements that "seemed, at least on the surface, to be a little bit at odds with the statement of faith of the college," and so President Farris "sought clarification and was looking for an exchange of views."

However, Walker contends, instead of responding to Farris the disgruntled professors quit. The college's new chief administrator says the five resigned before Farris could draw any conclusions and, in fact, resigned even "before he could take any actions whatsoever."

But in spite of what has occurred, Walker stresses that faculty members of all evangelical perspectives are welcome on Patrick Henry College's campus, whether they be Pentecostal, non-Pentecostal, Reformed, or non-Reformed in their theology. He says he was drawn to the school because it "exemplifies sacrifice and bringing your best to the Lord."

http://news.christiansunite.com/Religion_News/religion04555.shtml

Additional information on ChristiansUnite.com is available on the Internet at http://www.christiansunite.com/

[Shammu]

Author: Despite NOW, Many Women Opting for Stay-at-Home Parenting

by Mary Rettig
June 5, 2006

(AgapePress) - - Author and stay-at-home mom Suzanne Venker says the leaders of the National Organization for Women, or NOW, are out of touch with real women of today.

Elizabeth Vargas, co-anchor of ABC's "World News Tonight," recently announced she is leaving the program because of her pregnancy and her desire to spend more time with her other child. However, NOW president Kim Gandy finds the situation suspicious and is positing the possibility of network discrimination against Vargas.

Gandy wrote an article on the NOW website decrying Vargas' departure and suggesting that the ABC anchorwoman was dumped, not unlike the ABC show "Commander in Chief," for presenting viewers with a strong female image.

The head of NOW says it seems unlikely that Vargas, "having survived and thrived through her first pregnancy ... would logically give up the top job in TV a few months out, anticipating she couldn't handle it." And since the newswoman's decision to leave her prime "World News Tonight" position to spend time with her children seems illogical to Gandy, the women's organization president says she smells a rat.

But Suzanne Venker, author of 7 Myths of Working Mothers (Spence Publishing, 2004), thinks that response has a rather suspicious odor all its own. She says NOW is an organization whose leaders are bent on playing the discrimination card even where none exists.

"And every time a woman today makes any choice that is not what they would want her to make," Venker adds, "that is, to stay in the workforce full time, regardless of your situation with your children -- then there must be a 'rat' defined, because, [as NOW sees it,] you couldn't possibly have chosen this."

Gandy and NOW seem to think every woman who wants a family can and should be a career-oriented mom who hands her children off to daycare, the author says. But today, she asserts, it is a growing trend that more women are realizing they cannot do it all, maintaining a fabulous career while managing a home and raising perfect children.

"If the world functioned differently, and if we had our system set up in such a way that allowed women to succeed at both of these pursuits, both motherhood and career simultaneously, then women wouldn't have to make these choices," Venker says.

"But, of course," the stay-at-home parent continues, "women are voluntarily making the 'choice' -- to use the term we use today -- to opt out in order to be with their children." And that fact is going to upset the feminists of NOW and groups like it, she adds, "because that defies their entire agenda."

Gandy and the National Organization for Women need to catch up with the times, Venker insists. She says more women are recognizing motherhood as the full-time job it is rather than something they can do on the side, and those who choose to be stay-at-home moms should be supported and commended for their decision.

http://news.christiansunite.com/Religion_News/religion04556.shtml

Additional information on ChristiansUnite.com is available on the Internet at http://www.christiansunite.com/

[Shammu]

Attorney Suggests Gov't Regulation of Google a Possibility

by Allie Martin
June 5, 2006

(AgapePress) - - An attorney with a prominent conservative Christian group says he is troubled by the recent announcement that the popular Internet search engine Google' has dumped news sites criticizing radical Islam.

Last month Frank Salvato, owner of The New Media Journal, was informed by representatives of Google that his website's news page would be dropped as one of the search engine's news resources because of complaints regarding "hate speech." Google officials referenced three articles from the site that allegedly contained such speech directed at the Muslim religion. (See earlier article)

The chief counsel of the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy says Google's decision is troubling because of the company's influence on the Worldwide Web. Steve Crampton explains that the whole concept behind a search engine is that users are just looking for information -- and that the users will then take it from there.

"[Users are essentially saying] 'I'll do the decision-making -- the discriminating, if you will -- as to which articles I want to read and which ones I don't,'" says Crampton. "But when you retrieve only left-leaning articles or only articles that are favorable to the religion of Islam, you're not really providing news. You're providing a slanted view of the world."

And evidently Google provides its view to a major portion of American Internet users. According to the Nielsen/NetRatings report [PDF], half (50 percent) of all the Internet searches -- or approximately 2.65 billion searches -- conducted in the U.S. in April 2006 were carried out on Google. Yahoo! search and MSN search followed with 22 and 11 percent respectively. That makes Google, a private entity, one with vast influence -- and consequently, an argument might be made for government regulation, Crampton says.

"When you consider how large this entity has become, you start to get into a realm where an argument could be made that perhaps this entity now becomes sort of like a public utility to the extent that the people rely on Google and Google alone," the attorney states. "There may be an argument that the government can step in and regulate Google in a way that it couldn't otherwise regulate a private entity."

Still, Crampton encourages concerned Christians to contact Google and let them know of their outrage at the decision. Company officials did not respond to an interview request.

http://news.christiansunite.com/Religion_News/religion04557.shtml

Additional information on ChristiansUnite.com is available on the Internet at http://www.christiansunite.com/