Friday November 9, 2007
- US Social Conservatives Criticise Robertson’s Giuliani Endorsement
- Death-mobiles – Swiss Right-To-Die Group Offers Suicide In A Parked Car
- Russian Healthcare Ministry Encourages Informed Consent and Abortion Alternatives
- Republican Nomination Race News Briefs
- Praise and Criticism of Bush’s Mary Ann Glendon Nomination
- Teacher Unions Real Reason Utah Parents Lost School Choice Vote
- Conservatives React Against Pro-Gay ENDA Measure
- New Study Shows 32% of Homosexuals Have Suffered Abuse by their “Partner”
- LifeSiteNews.com Newsbytes
US Social Conservatives Criticise Robertson’s Giuliani Endorsement
One leader calls endorsement “a significant political retreat by the religious right”
By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman
November 9, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The reaction from leading US social conservatives to Pat Robertson’s endorsement of pro-abortion and pro-gay Rudolph Giuliani for the Republican presidential nomination has ranged from outraged denunciation to conspicuous silence. Robertson’s move is especially significant since the evangelical protestant leader’s “700 Club” program influences millions of Americans and he has in the past had a major influence on US elections.
According to One News Now, the news agency of the influential American Family Association, only one pro-family leader they contacted agreed to respond — anonymously. A close friend of Robertson, he reportedly said that the endorsement is “tragic”, and nominating Giuliani “will destroy the Republican Party.”
However, other social conservatives were quite public in their reaction to the endorsement. Randy Thomasson, president of the pro-life Campaign for Children and Families, told the Christian Post that “Pat Robertson is leading pro-family voters astray by abandoning moral standards for government,” and, “This shocking news is a 180-degree turn by the founder of the Christian Coalition.”
Randall Terry, the founder of Operation Rescue, announced that a protest would be held outside of Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network offices in Washington, D.C., stating that “I am literally sick to my stomach over Dr. Robertson’s decision. He wrote a forward to my book, Operation Rescue, I have been on the 700 Club, I have spoken at Regent University, CBN helped me get started in radio, and the attorneys of the ACLJ have been heroic advocates for our pro-life mission. This is what happens when a leader puts party ahead of principle; it corrupts ones ability to reason consistently.”
The endorsement seems to indicate a change in priorities for Robertson, who has traditionally emphasized human life and family issues. He justified his decision to support Giuliani by referring to the candidate’s leadership on law enforcement, tax cuts, and military aggressiveness. He listed social concerns as third, after military and economic issues.
Robert Tracinski of Real Clear Politics sees the endorsement as a sign of “a significant political retreat by the religious right”. In his recent column he notes Robertson’s altered priorities and says, “we have reached the point at which a long-time top leader of the religious right has conceded that the religious social agenda should not be the Republican Party’s ‘overriding’ concern.”
Tracinski says that the significance of the endorsement is that “the religious right has apparently accepted much more modest political goals, settling for Rudy Giuliani’s promise about judges…In short, the religious right is preparing itself to settle for a kind of bare minimum from the Republican presidential candidate. It is preparing itself to subordinate its religious agenda to a secular agenda.”
Another highly influential conservative political activist, Paul Weyrich, released his endorsement of Mitt Romney just before Robertson came out with his announcement. Weyrich recently told Newsmax, I’m not for Giuliani. I want to try to stop him from getting the nomination.”
However, the liberal publication “Mother Jones”, which has an incentive to play up the Robertson endorsement to discredit Giuliani, opines in its blog that the Robertson event is “irrelevant”: “Does this mean evangelicals don’t care about abortion and homosexuality as much as people think? No. Frankly, I think this just underscores Robertson’s irrelevance. He’s a cranky old man who has been replaced by younger and more energetic leaders in his movement.”
The Times of London, after dismissing Robertson as a crackpot based on a series of well-known public gaffes and embarrassments, sees the event as evidence of a “crackup” in the evangelical protestant movement in the U.S. “It was always a neat fiction put about by the godless media that evangelicals were like some giant army of automatons who could be programmed to march to the voting booths, Bibles aloft, ready to vote for God’s way exactly as defined by their preachers” writes the Times. “There was always more diversity than that, but these days the diversity is startling. Evangelicals are fracturing.”
Death-mobiles – Swiss Right-To-Die Group Offers Suicide In A Parked Car
By Thaddeus M. Baklinski
Zurich, November 9, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Swiss suicide charity Dignitas has been forced to reinvent its assisted death operation after losing its lease on the apartment in a Zurich suburb where hundreds of people had gone to die.
Other residents in the building had complained about having to use the same elevator as “customers” going up to the third floor flat, and dead bodies being taken down to ambulances or hearses parked below.
Dignitas had hoped to book a suite of hotel rooms to carry out the assisted deaths but withdrew when the Association of Zurich Hoteliers threatened legal action if clients checked in to die. Use of their former premises in an industrial area was also denied them by local authorities.
With nowhere to turn, the group has been reduced to offering its killing service in rental vans where clients are given a concoction of chemicals which they voluntarily drank – which means there is no possibility of prosecution under Swiss law.
Assisted suicide, where the patient carries out the final act himself, is legal in Switzerland while active euthanasia, or deliberate killing to end suffering, is not.
The organization intends to continue offering mobile suicide services until it finds a permanent base.
Though Dignitas founder Ludwig Minelli said he decided to use car parks because of the overwhelming demand for his service, the fact that no one wants them in their neighborhood should give a clear message that many groups and individuals find their operation degrading and want it stopped.
Swiss politicians are worried by the sordid image evoked by the operation and the possibility of Switzerland becoming the preferred destination for “death tourism” because of the growing number of foreigners, especially Germans, who travel to Switzerland for this purpose.
Eugen Brysch, director of the German Hospice Foundation, described the car park operation as “disgusting” and said this latest move showed that Dignitas was “determined to make a business out of human suffering with their mad ideas”.
See related LifeSiteNews coverage:
Neighbor’s Complaints Succeed in Evicting Dignitas from Residence
Woman Suffers Painful Death at Zurich Suicide Facility–Investigation May Follow
Euthanasia Doctor Commits Suicide after Finding Patient He Killed Was Not Terminally Ill
Russian Healthcare Ministry Encourages Informed Consent and Abortion Alternatives
Doctors not required to follow procedure but it is strongly recommended
By John Connolly
MOSCOW, Russia, November 9, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In the most recent in a long line of attempts to shore up the nation’s critical demographic crisis, the Russian Federation’s Healthcare Ministry has approved a measure to procure a signature from women seeking an abortion.
The document discloses the possibility of suffering grave complications from an abortion and provides a full list of potential medical hazards. The doctor performing the abortion would also sign the document, confirming he fully disclosed the medical risks and informed the woman of alternatives to abortion.
Doctors are not being required to offer the document to women for signing, but the Health Ministry strongly recommends that they do.
The Health Ministry’s proposal means the government is reluctantly realizing the link between the nation’s plummeting population and its staggering abortion rate.
Russia’s birth rate is outpaced by its abortion rate, leading to a population crisis in the country. Russia has an average annual population decline of 700,000 people. 60% of all pregnancies are estimated to end in abortion in Russia, and has led to greater discouragement of abortions by distressed demographic experts.
President Vladimir Putin has called the demographic crisis a “critical” matter for Russia. Concern among government and healthcare officials has resulted in a number of schemes to convince couples to have children ranging from sterility taxes to a national “conception-day.”
See previous LifeSiteNews coverage:
Russian Youth Group Encourages “More Sex” to Save Motherland from Dwindling Population
Low Birth Rate is Russia’s Biggest Problem Says President Putin
Russian Abortion Killing and Sterilizing Millions; Demographic Collapse Likely to be Worse than Previously Predicted
Republican Nomination Race News Briefs
* Disclaimer: The linked items below or the websites at which they are located do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.com. They are presented only for your information.
* Time Editor: Hillary Clinton a ‘Moral Conservative’:
AMY SULLIVAN: On foreign policy, she is a little more hawkish than the rest of the Democratic Party, and certainly more than the primary base is. It seems that on social issues, by which I mean kind of welfare and economic issues [economic issues are social issues?], she’s fairly liberal. But she’s a moral conservative. Which is to say that she also gets behind, you know, things like values issues. She’s endorsed a plan to lower abortion rates that actually just passed through the House and Senate conference committee this week.
TUCKER CARLSON: She also has come out in support of partial-birth abortion, against the vast majority of Americans, at least as measured by poll numbers. So that suggests that’s an issue she really believes in.
SULLIVAN: But she also stood up to the choice community a few years ago and declared that abortion was a tragedy.
CARLSON: Hmm. Well, that’s not, I mean, her husband has said the same thing. That’s not really standing up.
SULLIVAN: “Safe, legal and rare,” but she was the one who started it, safe, legal and rare first.
* The chinks in Hillary Clinton’s once impenetrable armor have been found:
Hillary’s opponents have been able to link her stand – or lack thereof – on issues to reinforce voter’s doubts about her honesty and electability. Doubts about her positions on Iraq and Iran and her inability to provide straightforward answers on issues such as social security, access to her White House records, and driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants have led to what seems like her first losing media cycle of the campaign. Even her husband – usually a media darling – seemed to stumble as he attempted to defend his wife from ramped up criticism.
What her recent stumbles reveal is that Hillary is vulnerable. She is attempting a precarious balancing act. She needs to attract and hold the support of liberals while at the same time leaving room to move to the center. But this requires a finesse that Hillary, unlike her husband, lacks. Every time she tries to avoid being pinned down on difficult issues like social security, immigration, and taxes she highlights doubts about her honesty and voter’s trust.
A sense for the first time in this election cycle that Mrs. Clinton just may be in a fight, a real one, one she could actually lose – Peggy Noonan:
Mrs. Clinton’s toughness seems to have no purpose beyond the personal accrual of power. What will she do with the power? Still unclear. It happens to be unclear in the case of several candidates, but with Mrs. Clinton there is a unique chasm between the ferocity and the purpose of the ferocity.
Clinton predicts his wife will win by “good margin”
Mitt Romney has opened fifteen-point lead over Rudy Giuliani in New Hampshire Primary
* As long as Mitt Romney keeps America focused on his religion, he may win the upcoming January primaries:
But as soon as Americans are able to penetrate the religion smokescreen and see his governor’s record, voters may think twice.
1. Mitt is a liberal. How do you think he got elected to the most left wing state in America?
2. He’s that liberal?! He gave Massachusetts a socialist government
3. I thought he was pro-life? Romney’s Massachusetts health care plan says “no.”
4. But he does stand for family values, right?
If you think two guys getting married constitutes a family, then yes, he’s into family values.
5. But he’s a fiscal conservative, right? When it comes to spending money, he is more liberal than Ted K.
6. But he’ll elect conservative judges, right? Romney loves to preach passionate sermons against “judicial activism.”
7. Are you saying he can’t be trusted? Ted K called him John Kerry.
8. Well then, what’s all this about Mitt being the “pragmatic” Republican choice? Ah yes. Keep in mind, pragmatic means “what works.”
* Romney urges tax credit for parents who home school children
* Fred Thompson comments revealed astounding lack of sensitivity about the abortion issue – Robert D. Novak
* Analysis: Kerik Could Tarnish Giuliani
* Cheery conservative Huckabee shakes up Republican race
* Ron Paul – a fringe candidate who broke through into being a cult figure?
* To Ron Paul Supporters: Civility is Essential
– Unfortunately, there is a segment of the Ron Paul network that has been receiving attention of another nature for quite some time — his avid online “supporters.” I’m not talking about people who simply support Ron Paul. – – I’m talking about the aggressive network of online fans who bombard discussion boards, spam web sites, flood online polls, and behave in a manner that puts their candidate in an extremely bad light. These so-called supporters not only hurt the Republican Party overall, but they also hurt their candidate.
– They say people are “stupid,” “idiots,” “traitors,” and worse for not supporting Ron Paul.
– The antics and unprofessional behavior of some of Ron Paul’s supporters have been noted for quite some time.
* At Times, Civility Does Exist, But Then Again… (about aggressive Ron Paul supporters)
Praise and Criticism of Bush’s Mary Ann Glendon Nomination
Glendon has acted as pro-life advisor to Governor Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign
By John Connolly
WASHINGTON, DC, November 9, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – President George Bush’s nomination Monday of Mary Ann Glendon to be U.S. ambassador to the Vatican has been criticized as reactionary and subversive by US abortion and homosexual advocates. Glendon is a high profile and pro-life member the president’s bioethics council.
Glendon, 69, is known at Harvard for her advocacy of Catholic teachings on a number of issues, including abortion and same-sex “marriage.” She will succeed Francis Rooney, who served as envoy to the Vatican for the past two years. Glendon’s appointment is for a five year term, and requires Senate confirmation.
Father Richard John Neuhaus, on the influential First Things website, today calls the selection of Glendon “a brilliant choice”. He also notes a downside to her appointment in that “Prof. Glendon will be resigning from the editorial board of First Things.”
Glendon was a member of President Bush’s Council on Bioethics, advising the president on moral and ethical issues related to technological developments in bioethics. She has frequently criticized radical feminism and defended the Church’s position on life issues.
“The challenge of the church is to keep abreast of changes, but not dumb down its doctrine to the spirit of the age,” she said in an earlier interview with the AP. “Contrary to popular stereotype, John Paul II has done a great deal to put women in many responsible positions.”
In 1994, Pope John Paul II appointed Glendon to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. In 2004, Glendon became the highest ranking female advisor to the Church when she was named president of the Academy. She also headed the delegation of the Holy See to the international 1995 Beijing Conference on Women sponsored by the United Nations, where she came under fire for her uncompromising statements against contraception.
US abortion and homosexual advocates have criticized Glendon’s nomination. Jon O’Brien, president of the pro-abortion organization Catholics For a Free Choice, stated, “Dr. Glendon’s stance on many matters of importance is not representative of Americans’ views on these issues, let alone those of American Catholics”. He added, “Her appointment comes at a time when the global community needs more critics of the Vatican’s policies on sexual and reproductive rights.”
Fr. Neuhaus reports that the Boston Globe is also not happy about Glendon’s appointment. He quotes the Globe, “Glendon, 69, is an antiabortion scholar and an opponent of gay marriage who has written about the effects of divorce and increased litigation on society. Her 1987 book, “Abortion and Divorce in Western Law,” was critical of the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that established a legal right to abortion.”
The Globe also reports that Rev. Richard P. McBrien, a University of Notre Dame theologian and leading US dissident Catholic is not happy about the Glendon appointment. McBrien told the Globe, “She has also been an outspoken critic of feminism, tending to write it off as a relic of the 1970s, all of which endears her to conservative Catholics and makes her an ideal choice for President Bush.”
Cardinal Sean O’Malley, however, praised Glendon in an interview with the Boston Globe. “Dr. Glendon’s career is marked with numerous achievements in law, education, and international affairs that provide her exemplary credentials for this post,” he said.
In her capacity as a legal specialist in the field of bioethics, Glendon has been a leader in the Catholic opposition to same-sex “marriage,” and has acted as an advisor to Governor Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign.
Teacher Unions Real Reason Utah Parents Lost School Choice Vote
Neuhaus says, “teachers-union propaganda about vouchers taking money away from their own schools is powerfully effective”
By Meg Jalsevac
WASHINGTON, DC, November 8, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Utah voters took to the polls on Tuesday, November 6 to vote on the recently passed ‘Parent Choice in Education’ legislation. The defeat by a 3 to 2 margin is being blamed by many in the pro-voucher camp on excessive funding poured into the anti-school choice campaign by public school teacher’s unions rather than genuine support from parents who think public school is the best option for the state’s children.
The Utah voucher legislation was considered a highly progressive educational initiative that would have eventually provided varying levels of public financial assistance in the form of vouchers for attendance at a school of choice to every child in the state. According to the long range plan for the voucher system, by the end of the fifth year of the transition period, the system was projected to generate income for the state budget over and above educational costs.
The battle to approve the voucher system was largely lead by the parent run local organization ‘Parents for Choice in Education’. Members voiced their disappointment at the defeat of the initiative saying on their website, “It is unfortunate that families who need another option have been stripped of their ability to choose a school that meets the needs of their children.”
The big money fight against the vouchers was lead primarily by teacher’s unions who bombarded the Utah public with high priced ads insinuating that the new legislation would result in the demise of the entire public school system. They did not mention that the system was merely a means for parents to exercise more freedom in choosing schools.
The Utah teacher’s union involved in defeating the voucher proposal was funded by unions around the country as it was believed the Utah voucher system would have been used as a precedent for similar initiatives in other states.
According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, Kim Campbell, head of the Utah Education Association, campaigned in Washington, DC to seek over $3 million in funds from the National Education Association. In DC, Ms. Campbell said that her strategy to defeat the education option would be “ugly, mean and expensive.”
Supporters of school choice argued that allowing parents more freedom in education choices would not only provide better opportunities for all children but would provide more equality for minority children or children in low-income families.
Patrick Byrne, the CEO of Overstock.com and a large financial backer of the effort to approve the voucher system, said of the Utah vote, “It’s overwhelmingly clear that minority children are not important.”
John Neuhaus of First Things also commented on the recent Utah defeat saying that the “moral case standing on its own is not enough to persuade the majority of voters. The moral case is focused on the plight of the disadvantaged, especially the urban underclass, mainly black and Latino, in our larger cities… [Parents] may have a twinge of conscience about their selfishness, but the teachers-union propaganda about vouchers taking money away from their own schools is powerfully effective.”
Concerned parents and other supporters of the voucher system have not lost hope despite the ballot defeat. There is discussion about possibly supporting an education tax credit program as the next effort.
While the cost of providing public education has steadily increased, the educational results of public schooling are seen to have steadily declined. Despite federal programs such as the Bush administration’s ‘No Child Left Behind’, the US has consistently ranked low in international scholarship comparisons.
In 2002, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that school voucher systems were constitutional. At the time of the decision, then-Chief Justice Rehnquist commented on educational vouchers saying, “It permits such individuals to exercise genuine choice among options public and private, secular and religious. The program is therefore a program of true private choice.”
In 2000, then-Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Sodano stated that voucher systems were “a good idea” because it left the choice of schools more appropriately in the hands of parents. Bishops in both the US and Canada have voiced their approval of similar voucher systems. The Catholic Church has long taught that parents are to be the primary educators of their children.
Read previous LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
VATICAN SUPPORTS SCHOOL VOUCHERS
SCHOOL VOUCHER PROGRAM UPHELD BY US SUPREME COURT
Conservatives React Against Pro-Gay ENDA Measure
Must now pass Senate but not expected to achieve margin to overrule promised Bush veto
By John Connolly
WASHINGTON, DC, November 9, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) on Wednesday. The legislation would extend existing employment-discrimination provisions to establish “a comprehensive Federal prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.” The act would give homosexuals the power to file a lawsuit over Christian employers’ exercise of their freedom of religion.
ENDA, passed by a vote of 235-184 and exempts only churches and the military, was championed by Reps. Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin, both of whom are openly gay.
The passing of the ENDA has caused an outcry from conservatives reacting to this threat to their religious freedom. House Republican leader John Boehner said, “ENDA is modeled closely after state employment non-discrimination laws currently being misused by activist judges to impose same-sex marriage and civil union laws on states.”
Likewise, House Republican Whip Roy Blunt voiced his frustrations over legislation that directly threatens religion in the public sphere. “In this case, the so-called ‘Employment Non-Discrimination Act’ creates a legal quagmire for employees who practice, or even acknowledge, their religious beliefs — depending on where they happen to work, and subject to judicial interpretation.”
While Democrats have praised the act as a step toward their overarching scheme of all-holds-barred equality, House speaker Nancy Pelosi lamented that it did not go far enough. “While ENDA’s victory will represent an historic victory, I share the disappointment of Tammy Baldwin and Barney Frank and others who support including protections for transgender individuals in ENDA,” she said.
On Monday, the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, Exodus International, Alliance Defense Fund, Concerned Women for America (CWA) and American Family Association sent a letter to all House members urging them to vote against the measure.
Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues at CWA, managed to convince several Republicans and Democrats to vote against the act. “ENDA would unconstitutionally force business owners to abandon their faith at the workplace door and adopt a view of sexual morality which runs directly counter to central tenets of every major world religion and thousands of years of history,” he said. “It’s hard to imagine the Framers agreeing that newfangled ‘gay rights,’ based on changeable sexual behaviors, should trump the First Amendment.”
“We need to make sure there are enough votes to sustain that veto in the Senate, as we did in the House, should ENDA ultimately cross [President George Bush’s] desk,” said Shari Rendall, CWA’s director of legislation and public policy, on Thursday.
President Bush has expressed plans to veto the bill should it pass the Senate, a move required to maintain the integrity of the state-level bans on homosexual “marriage.” The Act requires 270 votes to overrule a Bush veto, a number Republicans don’t foresee its supporters will achieve.
See previous LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
US House Begins Hearing on Homosexual Non-Discrimination Act
Bush Pledges Veto on Law Banning Job Discrimination based on “Sexual Orientation”
New Study Shows 32% of Homosexuals Have Suffered Abuse by their “Partner”
By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman
NEW YORK, November 9, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A study published in the most recent edition of the Journal of Urban Health, which is published by the New York Academy of Medicine, has found that over 32% of active homosexuals report that they have suffered “abuse” by one or more “partners” during the course of their lives (see report abstract at https://www.springerlink.com/content/r6q02560022h4276/?=eec72…).
According to the study, which surveyed sexually active homosexuals and bisexuals in the Chicago area, 19.2% reported physical violence, which the survey characterizes as “hit, kicked, shoved, burned, cut, or otherwise physically hurt”. Another 18.5% reported “unwanted sexual activity” — that is, that they have been in some sense raped by one of their “partners”. Finally, 20.6% reported being verbally abused.
The study also states that “depression and substance abuse were among the strongest correlates of intimate partner abuse”, reflecting previous studies that have shown a high level of substance abuse, depression, and other psychological and behavioral disorders among homosexuals.
The study’s results confirm what numerous other studies have already shown: that homosexuals are disproportionately prone to acts of aggression against their “partners” and others.
Pathological behavior is very highly correlated with the active “gay” lifestyle, including high rates of depression, alcoholism and drug abuse, promiscuity, and suicide, even in countries and societies that are generally accepting of their “lifestyle” choice. Homosexuals are also far more likely to contract venereal diseases, cancer, and other diseases.
See previous LifeSiteNews.com articles:
Intimate Partner Abuse among Gay and Bisexual Men: Risk Correlates and Health Outcomes
Mental and Physical Pathologies Associated with Homosexual Behavior
How do Homosexual Couples Compare to Heterosexual? An Analysis
* Disclaimer: The linked items below or the websites at which they are located do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.com. They are presented only for your information.
Gay Candidates Victorious Across the U.S.
Help us Save the Humans – 51 sec. video
San Jose Mercury-News says pharmacists should pay no heed to pontiff’s advice on abortion-inducing and euthanasia drugs
40 Days for Life Merely the Beginning; Pro-lifers Redoubling Their Commitment
Problems With Oregon Assisted Suicides are Real
Media Clueless on “Right to Die” Term
Parents Sue Doctors for Reviving Baby
Mouse Infant Stem Cells Rebuild Brain Tissue
“With embryonic cells, somebody dies”
China’s One-Child Self-Destruction
Outsourcing Wombs in India
Uruguayan bishops react to legalization of abortion
Amazing Awakenings — Will the Nation’s Conscience be Awakened Too?
Surgeon enters third not-guilty plea in case of failed organ harvest
Egg-Harvesting: A $3 Billion Industry
The possibility of creating a bewildering variety of human-animal combinations requires profound ethical reflection.
The Illusion of Freedom Separated from Moral Virtue
AP Distorts Poll Results On Birth Control In Public Schools
New developments in Maine middle school birth control case
“Merck to expand use of cervical cancer vaccine,” Associated Press, 11/5/07, https://money.cnn.com/2007/11/05/news/companies/merck_gardasi…
Will your kid discover his personal ‘daemon’? – “dark spirits encircling this movie, as with the books, are palpable and will eat our young alive.”
Congressman attacks Olympics Bible restrictions, admonishes President Bush
Visitors to Beijing Olympics advised: take no more than one Bible
CBC A Division of China Central Television & media outlet for the Chinese Communist Party in Canada
Viewer’s guide to rooting out propaganda in future CBC climate coverage
City seeks bids for 1,719,648 condoms
See No ENDA, Hear No ENDA, Speak No ENDA – media swept it under the rug
Christian web editor cleared of hate speech
A Stirring Iraq Photo of Muslim and Christian Iraqis working together to affix a cross atop St. John’s Church in Baghdad
Feds ban grandma’s angel ornament on Christmas tree
Apostolic Vicar in Arabia: affinity and convergence between Pope and Saudi King
India’s Emerging Alliance: Christians and Muslims Join Forces
Professor Dawkins and the Origins of Religion
Canada lax in tackling global sex trade
Push to rid military bases of porn gains momentum
Should HIV Vaccine Human Test Subjects be Told It INCREASES Their Risk?
N.Y. official wants gays in St Patrick’s Day parade
California’s Log Cabin Republicans rate state’s GOP lawmakers, celebrate nine appointments of open homosexuals by Gov. Schwarzenegger
Pro-gay curriculum creeps into D.C. schools