University of Hawaii professor - child pornography actually can serve a beneficial service to society

The state of higher education....


A University of Hawaii professor and director of the Pacific Center for Sex and Society is postulating that child pornography actually can serve a beneficial service to society because "potential sexual offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex crimes against children." from WND

Eeeeewww! Yuck! - Indeed.

 From theotherMccain

yesterday’s New York Daily News:

A popular Columbia professor was charged Thursday with incest – accused of a sick sex relationship with a female relative, prosecutors said.
Political science Prof. David Epstein, 46, bedded the young woman over a three-year period ending last year, according to court papers.
He was arraigned before a Manhattan judge on a single felony incest count.
Sources said the victim was over 18 when therelationship began in 2006 and that the two often exchanged twisted text messages.
Epstein faces up to four years behind bars if convicted.

This is the guy who called Sarah Palin “weak” and “self-centered.”

Project much, professor?

UPDATE: Oooh, details emerge of Professor Pervo’s (alleged) crime:

He had relations with his daughter, now 24, from 2006 through 2009, the complaint said.

So, according to his own daughter, Professor Pervo was engaged in this twisted behavior the whole time he was blogging at HuffPo.

UPDATE II: “Police say the relationship between Epstein and his daughter was consensual.”

All together now: Eeeeewww! Yuck!

School Makes Boy Take American Flag Off Bike

From Fox40

13-year-old Cody Alicea rides with an American flag on the back of his bike. He says he does this to be patriotic and to honor veterans, like his own grandfather, Robert. He's had the flag on his bike for two months but Monday, was told to take it down.

A school official at Denair Middle School told Cody some students had been complaining about the flag and it was no longer allowed on school property.

Order since rescinded but the fact that it could be made with a straight face to begin with speaks volumes...

Amazon selling several child molestation books

Moral myopia. Time to shop- somewhere else...

After suffering a public relations nightmare yesterday, online marketer Amazon.com removed "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure" from its virtual bookstore – but the company continues to sell at least seven pro-molestation titles that are even more offensive.

Amazon is still offering two books written by a Dutch professor and pedophile, and five by an unapologetic pro-"boylove" American, David Riegel, who compares himself to human rights crusader Andrei Sakharov in the introduction to one of his books.

In fact, Amazon devotes an entire web page to Riegel and his work. Riegel, in turn, credits Amazon for keeping his book, "Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers," available to the public for nearly a decade....

..."Amazon.com believes it is censorship not to sell certain titles because we believe their message is objectionable," the company wrote to critics.

Greaves acknowledged in "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure" that sex between adults and boys can be harmful to the boys.

"This is my attempt to make pedophile situations safer for those juveniles that find themselves involved in them, by establishing certain rules for these adults to follow," wrote Phillip Greaves.

Riegel, in contrast, claims boys are almost never harmed by "consensual" sex with men. According to his Amazon web page, Riegel "earned an undergraduate degree in Psychology from a fully accredited state... More

Obama's Safe Schools Czar and the Assault on Our Children

An excellent cataloging of the litany of filth and the sexual assault of our children
 by Obama's so called "Safe Schools Czar." From Gateway Pundit:

For any of you out there who haven’t been following this story, I suggest
 you go back here and read for yourself what Kevin Jennings’
 organization GLSEN has been pushing on children in America. Then ask
 yourself if this man should be the “Safe Schools Czar.” If you still think
 he should keep his job you should probably seek help. This scandal isn’t
 about left or right. It’s not about being a good Democrat or Republican.
 It’s not about gay versus straight. This story is about keeping
America’s children safe. (more)

Sign The Manhattan Declaration!

H/T Touchstone.
Attention! From the signers of Manhattan Declaration, :


We invite you to join with other Christians across the nation who support the sanctity of life, traditional marriage and religious liberty by endorsing the Manhattan Declaration.


Throughout the centuries, God has graciously provided His people with teachers and prophetic voices who apply His word to the critical issues of the day and who lead their hearers to embrace His life-giving authority and counsel in the midst of cultural madness. The Manhattan Declaration extends and honors that tradition, and we urge you to join us in affirming it. The Manhattan Declaration addresses with urgent eloquence the devaluation of human life, the corruption of marriage, and the erosion of religious liberty. With careful instruction, it brings light and clarity to all who read it. We trust that millions of believers will sign it, that countless others will be drawn or driven to give it fair consideration, and that our society will be changed by its strong yet sweetly reasonable message.

The Manhattan Declaration will be released this Friday, November 20, 2009, at a press conference in Washington D.C. It bears the signatures of many religious leaders, but this is just the beginning. The list of supports will grow dramatically in a short time and those who most need to hear this word will not be able to escape or downplay it. So please endorse this document by your signature and spread the word to others who might endorse it as well. Thank you.

Click here to view the Manhattan Declaration and lend your name to those who have already signed: http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/



Who Signed?

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back... So goes the old saying and song. And so goes the news on the marriage and abortion front:

Efforts to redefine marriage have seemingly stalled in New Jersey:
(LifeSiteNews) - A bill to legalize same-sex "marriage" in the state of New Jersey will likely never arrive on the desk of Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine, an ardent same-sex "marriage" supporter, as momentum for its passage has stalled in committee, reports the Associated Press.

While same sex marriage proponents' campaign to redefine marriage whatever the cost appears to be poised to wreak havoc on D.C.'s poor.
(More here) -- Members of the D.C. City Council have continued to refuse to address the Archdiocese of Washington's concerns that a bill to legalize same-sex "marriage" would injure the poor by forcing Catholic Charities either to support a violation of Catholic teaching or drop government social-service contracts.

and last but not least we have this lovely (and by lovely I mean horrific) story of a hospital in France found guilty of "Unreasonable Obstinacy" in saving a newborn's life. Problem is you see, that the child is now facing "severe mental and physical disabilities due to the trauma."

The Tragedy of Freedom

What is it you think of when you hear the word "freedom?" Aside, I mean, from the American idea of freedom enshrined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Perhaps it is the absence of responsibility or restraint; being able to do whatever you want to do, whenever you want to do it.

The Christian view of freedom is of course, much different. One of my favorite analogies is the picture of a ball-field on top of a high mountain. Surrounding the field are jagged and dangerous rocks many feet below, and a raging sea around them. The boys on the field are given a ball and told to play. Free from rules or boundaries, the play is timid at best. The chance that the ball or one of the boys will be lost. Only when a fence is put around the mountain top and some rules applied can the boys enjoy the game.

The Christian knows, or should, that true freedom comes not in giving free reign to the appetites and desires of his heart, but rather to tame them and focus them to right ends. Obedience and self-discipline is the way to true freedom.

Two examples this week of what unrestrained freedom can lead to. I know, i know its almost yesterdays news by now but still...

First in the tragic figure that was Michael Jackson. With talent and creativity to spare he had everything but someone to tell him "no." Growing up with money to burn he indulged every desire, every whim.

"...But he had no compass to find one; no real friends to support and advise him; and money and fame imprisoned him in the delusions of narcissism and self-indulgence. Of course, he bears responsibility for his bizarre life. But the damage done to him by his own family and then by all those motivated more by money and power than by faith and love was irreparable in the end. He died a while ago. He remained for so long a walking human shell. ..." Andrew Sullivan at Theologica

Justin Taylor at the same site, has this to say: (h/t mere comments)

He is dead at the age of 50. He had everything the world offered--but no Jesus.
I remember once looking at the liner notes from an album of his, and he quoted the final lines from William Ernest Henley's famous poem, Invictus:

I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

Those are not the words you want written on your tombstone.

It is hard to think of a sadder public figure in recent years. A black man who never found his identity as one created in God's image, and who never experienced the identity of being conformed to the image of Christ. Black and white, male and female, rich and bankrupt, genius and punchline, private and public, innocent and deceptive--everything seemed to be jumbled up.The one thing that comes to mind about Jackson is how bad he was at hiding his brokenness. Even while living in a literal fantasy land, it was obvious to everyone that this was a person--enormously gifted--desperately seeking a mask to cover, in futility, who he was.May God use even this to increase our compassion and ministry to the lost, broken, and confused.

The second example is equally tragic, that being Governor Mark Sanford. So blinded by his own selfishness and self serving desire as to throw away a marriage and do untold damage to his sons. By the sound of the e-mails he was dealing with a woman who might have been having her own issues as she mentions in their e-mails, that she may need therapy. A decent man would never have crossed the line, much less with a woman who was having emotional difficulties at the time. Yes, I read the e-mails, to seek out the motivations and to gain some insight, not for prurient reasons. But what I found was the face of sin. How it sullies high emotions and feelings such as love and respect and how it uses scripture to justify it's own way.

I speak from experience, when I was 25 and single and far away from home I met a woman, a married woman, 10 years my senior, at a party. Her husband was not there and we, "hit it off", one might say. It turned out, that the husband was in the Mediterranean having his own affair. I made every mistake that the good Governor made except that I was not married. But she was. And it made no difference that the marriage was already in trouble, the truth is, I assisted in its demise. I know how sin muddles your vision. I know how sin intoxicates and justifies.

Years later while half-heartedly confessing this sorry incident to a friend, I tried to rationalize it away by saying it all worked out for the best in the end, since the marriage was already in trouble and that I "comforted" her in a time of need.

The friend listened patiently and when I was done said simply, "What you said was interesting but it didn't require the Gospel to say it."

I was struck to the core. Thank God for that. If it doesn't take the Gospel to say it, there's nothing particularly "Christian" about it. Likewise, if we find our freedom in any place but through obedience to Christ, we are but the most pathetic of slaves.

Team of Researchers Blames Children's Films for Perpetuating "Heteronormativity"

"Heteronormativity"- Like Frankensteins's monster, bad satire comes to life.....

ANN ARBOR, Michigan, June 24, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Researchers at the University of Michigan have concluded that the love stories told in classic Disney and other G-rated children's films – such as the Little Mermaid - are partially to blame for the pervasiveness of what they label "heteronormativity."
"Despite the assumption that children’s media are free of sexual content, our analyses suggest that these media depict a rich and pervasive heterosexual landscape," wrote researchers Emily Kazyak and Karin Martin, in a report published in the latest issue of the Sociologists for Women in Society (SWS) publication Gender & Society.

Good Grief!

The Worst Thing About Gay Marriage

Interesting insights from the Weekly Standard by way of MereComments:

...When a gay man becomes a professor or a gay woman becomes a police officer, he or she performs the same job as a heterosexual. But there is a difference between a married couple and a same-sex couple in a long-term relationship. The difference is not in the nature of their relationship, not in the fact that lovemaking between men and women is, as the Catholics say, open to life. The difference is between the duties that marriage imposes on married people--not rights, but rather onerous obligations--which do not apply to same-sex love. ...

Well worth the read.

Over at Cathoholic, they have highlighted this article as well:

Schulman writes: "I think that the fundamental objection to gay marriage among most who oppose it has very little to do with one's feelings about the nature of homosexuality or what the Bible has to say about sodomy. The obstacle to wanting gay marriage is instead how we use and depend on marriage itself--and how little marriage, understood completely, affects or is relevant to gay people in love. Gay marriage is not so much wrong as unnecessary. But if it comes about, it will not be gay marriage that causes the harm I fear, as what will succeed its inevitable failure."

He believes that same-sex couples will determine on their own that the benefits accrued in marriage are simply not worth the obligations it imposes. Unfortunately, by the time same-sex couples and the larger culture arrive at this juncture, traditional marriage as an institution could be in even worse shape than it is now. Why? Because same-sex couples will assist in the unravelling of the social constrains and familial obligations that constitute the foundation of marriage as a once sturdy, if occasionally oppressive cultural institution.
and added some addtional thoughts

and they have added some additional thoughts:

One of the best meditations on the manifold obligations and joys intertwined in kinship practices must be an essay by Leon and Amy Kass: "What is your Name?" These two professors at the University of Chicago offer some very interesting insights regarding the deeper significance of 'naming a child' -- one of the primary kinship rituals that underscores parental authority, but also the mother and father's responsibility for the defense, nurture and education of their offspring:

You need to go read the whole thing. Perfect lunch time reading. Let's just hope enough people read it and heed it before its too late.

APA revises 'gay gene' theory

Whenever I remind my Sunday school class that there is no scientific evidence for a "gay gene," (or anything of the sort) I always get some doubtful and startled looks. The reality is that if you look at the studies (rather than the headlines) you'll see that the best that any researcher (gay or hetero) can come up with, is it may be a combination. The APA gave in to the homosexual lobby quite some time ago (as is pointed out in the article) and lost a great deal of credibility. This statement is a beginning toward regaining a shred of that credibility:

From OneNewsNow:

For decades, the APA has not considered homosexuality a psychological disorder, while other professionals in the field consider it to be a "gender-identity" problem. But the new statement, which appears in a brochure called "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality," states the following:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles...."

That contrasts with the APA's statement in 1998: "There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality." (more)

The First Amendment in Peril

The other morning as I arrived at work I received a call from my 13 year old son. It was a little past 7:00. His bus arrives at 7:30. I was concerned that he was ill or, more likely the case, had lost something he needed for school.

"I was just thinking how Obama is like Hitler," he said. "Well, not exactly but somethings he's doing," he explained.

"OK" I said, relieved it was nothing too serious and preparing myself for what can sometimes be the tortured logic of a 13 year old's mind.

"In Nazi Germany, they tried to restrict what radio broadcasts the people listened to," he explained. (His class has been studying the Holocaust.) "Hitler handed out radios that only broadcasted the governments views," he continued, "and some of the propaganda posters showed a person listening to other broadcasts with the word "Verrater" (Traitor) at the bottom." The poster depicted an activity the Nazis considered to be treason, the highest crime against a state and its people.


Indeed, as the US Holocaust Memorial Museum points out:

Goebbels's ministry recognized the tremendous promise of radio for propaganda. It heavily subsidized the production of the inexpensive "People's Receiver" (Volksempfänger) to facilitate sales. By early 1938, the number of radios in German homes surpassed more than 9 million, roughly one for every two German households. Three years later, this figure rose to almost 15 million, providing 50 million Germans with regular radio reception.

My son continued, "Isn't Obama trying to do the same thing by trying to shut down talk radio?"

What he was referring to of course if the so called "Fairness Doctrine," a subject we will no doubt be hearing more about as the Dems approach a filibuster proof majority.

Perhaps the call was more serious than I thought.

From WND:

This isn't the so-called "Fairness Doctrine."

It's much worse.

Here's what you can expect in the coming weeks and months:

• a new appointment to the position of chairman of the Federal Communications Commission who will implement a plan to create "community advisory boards" of community activists to monitor the content of talk-radio programs, threatening stations that carry dissenting content with broadcast license challenges;

• billions of additional dollars to be invested in so-called "public broadcasting" – those entities already funded and controlled by government;

• bailouts of failing newspapers perceived as essential propaganda tools for the party.

The FCC is currently composed of two Democrat and two Republican commissioners. Obama has nominated a new chairman, Julius Genachowski, which would give Democrats a 3-2 majority once he is confirmed.

But the nominee is not just another Democrat. He's a Democrat with a plan.
Genachowski advocates creating new media ownership rules that promote a diversity of voices on the airwaves. In fact, Genachowski is credited with helping craft the Obama technology agenda, which states: "Encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum."
Translation? Government control of broadcast media – particularly the kind of talk radio Democrats find so annoying.

The party in power wants to remain in power perpetually. And to do so, like so many other power-hungry parties of the past, it seeks to control the debate and stifle dissent. (more)

An Eyeful and Self-Control

Chewy, Chewy, Chewy. You've been spending too much time away from home.

My fellow poster at this blog has posted an attention grabbing article (see below). At first I thought someone had hacked the site and was posting unapproved. And I did consider deleting the picture itself but I figured in the name of scientific inquiry....

But seriously it started me thinking on a couple of thoughts that had begun churning about since the post "Naked Celebrities and the The Porn Myth."

The Porn Myth- by Naomi Wolf is a really good article about one of the many dangers of porn, namely that it turns men off the real thing. One of the many other dangers is that it creates an unnatural appetite or rather exaggerates the already high sex drive of most men to unnatural proportions. Both of which would make excellent posts but not ones which I'll focus on now.

The Porn Myth article rightly points out how the hper sexualization of society has caused a whole generation of women to feel they have to compete with porn.

Here is what young women tell me on college campuses when the subject comes up: They can’t compete, and they know it. For how can a real woman—with pores and her own breasts and even sexual needs of her own ...!”)—possibly compete with a cybervision of perfection, downloadable and extinguishable at will, who comes, so to speak, utterly submissive and tailored to the consumer’s least specification? (The Porn Myth)

Look at the picture (in the interest of health and science of course) posted by Chewy as a (relatively speaking) mild example.

But the article also raises the question, at least indirectly, of how radical feminism has created part of the problem. Namely, in the rush for equality of pay, we have gone to a point of equality-period. Meaning, the wrong headed idea that men and women are the same. They are not, of course and the differences go far beyond biology. But one of the results of this philosophy is that women have become more like men. They drink more, smoke more, consume more pornography, fight more and are ending up in prison in greater numbers than ever before.

The study quoted by Chewy (though a 200 hundred sample study hardly qualifies as a study- hmm-could this be something else?) brings up another issue. Namely, self-control. A lost concept that has gone the way of the Cornish language, nearly extinct. If a study such as the one quoted is accurate (or real) does it make it a proper course of action for a Christian?

The "manly-action of self-control"--teach that as a concept today, somewhere, anywhere. That is, teach young boys who are growing into manhood that becoming a man means learning to control oneself and the passions, that that is a manly thing to learn. Our society teaches the opposite: express your passions and indulge your lusts, just as soon as you can feel them.

When self-control isn't nurtured by the sort of parental discipline that it takes to help little boys behave, then self-control is killed in infancy, so to speak, and the child, despite growing biologically, will remain an adolescent, children in adult male bodies, able to "have sex" but unable to truly father and raise children. (merecomments)

And it creates a vicious circle as men raised without such discipline then raise young men who have no idea what ideals to aspire to. Education used to be a place where such virtues were evidenced in literature and the like, but not today.

In his notes and exposition on Proverbs 5 in Daily Reflections (February 24) Patrick Henry Reardon says this:

...the godly and productive life of a man normally requires the proper governance of his home. It is the teaching of Holy Scripture, however, that a man cannot govern his home unless he can govern himself. Self-control and discipline, therefore, are among the primary requisites of a good husband and father, and these are qualities to be developed from an early age. Consequently the Book of Proverbs is emphatic on the prohibition of sexual activity outside of marriage. Sex outside of marriage is also outside of God’s will.
A man’s marriage, in fact, can be damaged long before the marriage takes place. Sex before marriage often involves exploitation and disrespect, and it always involves irresponsibility, selfishness, and rebellion. These are bad habits to learn, not qualities in a man that will make him a good husband and father.

Amen

"Castration Celebration"

It's the name of a book. Random House. CHILDREN's Book!

From NY Post:

HOLD on to your laps, Amer ica. And lock up the kids until they're 42.
The latest addition to the well-stocked smut canon is aimed not at adults, but at impressionable teens and pre-adolescents. It's called "Castration Celebration" -- a kind of "High School Musical" meets "Saw." Gross.

The novel is about what you think, but worse. This twisted, comic romp does little more than cheerfully promote underage sex, drug-taking, binge-drinking and, most painfully of all, male dismemberment by a high-school-age female, the heroine.

The theme is captured on the very first page, which reads: "Did you know that in imperial China, eunuchs had their testicles, penis [sic] and scrotum [sic] removed?"
Aside from the egregious grammatical sins, the nastiest thing about this book is that it's not offered for sale in a brown paper bag by some oily character. This tome is the giddy, proud publication of prestigious Random House.

Random House Children's Books, that is.

Naked Celebrities and The Porn Myth

Recently, Allure magazine made the headlines, at least briefly, with five beautiful women it convinced to "bare all" for its magazine. The blurb went like this:

Allure asked five celebrities to bare it all for the camera. Learn what they had to say about self-esteem, their bodies, and stripping down; for more of our revealing interviews with them,...

"Self-esteem, their bodies and stripping down." There are many posts possible in these few lines. But I was drawn to one in particular. Mainly, why would they do this? What is the motivation for a beautiful woman to want to share that gift with the world and what is the difference between this and stripping and frankly, prostitution, because stripped (sorry) to its basic argument isn't that just another form of sharing yourself with others for their amusement?

OK perhaps the last part goes to far and I've actually asked more than one question there but still...

I was reminded of an article that I read many years ago, from feminist writer Naomi Wolf. Thanks to the wonders of the internet, I was able to find the article, which in part said this:

I will never forget a visit I made to Ilana, an old friend who had become an Orthodox Jew in Jerusalem. When I saw her again, she had abandoned her jeans and T-shirts for long skirts and a head scarf. I could not get over it. Ilana has waist-length, wild and curly golden-blonde hair. “Can’t I even see your hair?” I asked, trying to find my old friend in there. “No,” she demurred quietly. “Only my husband,” she said with a calm sexual confidence, “ever gets to see my hair.”
When she showed me her little house in a settlement on a hill, and I saw the bedroom, draped in Middle Eastern embroideries, that she shares only with her husband—the kids are not allowed—the sexual intensity in the air was archaic, overwhelming. It was private. It was a feeling of erotic intensity deeper than any I have ever picked up between secular couples in the liberated West. And I thought: Our husbands see naked women all day—in Times Square if not on the Net. Her husband never even sees another woman’s hair.

She must feel, I thought, so hot.

Compare that steaminess with a conversation I had at Northwestern, after I had talked about the effect of porn on relationships. “Why have sex right away?” a boy with tousled hair and Bambi eyes was explaining. “Things are always a little tense and uncomfortable when you just start seeing someone,” he said. “I prefer to have sex right away just to get it over with. You know it’s going to happen anyway, and it gets rid of the tension.”

“Isn’t the tension kind of fun?” I asked. “Doesn’t that also get rid of the mystery?”

“Mystery?” He looked at me blankly. And then, without hesitating, he replied: “I don’t know what you’re talking about. Sex has no mystery.”(more)

Much the same thing was said in the book "Everyman's Battle". One of the suggestions to men struggling against the lure of pornography and its addictive qualities and consequent detriment to marriages was to "starve their eyes" during the course of the day. Because to do otherwise, particularly with pornography (but in other ways too) cheats our spouses (and future spouses) of full devotion.

Wolf understands this:

The reason to turn off the porn might become, to thoughtful people, not a moral one but, in a way, a physical- and emotional-health one; you might want to rethink your constant access to porn in the same way that, if you want to be an athlete, you rethink your smoking. The evidence is in: Greater supply of the stimulant equals diminished capacity. (more)

After all, pornography works in the most basic of ways on the brain: It is Pavlovian. An orgasm is one of the biggest reinforcers imaginable. If you associate orgasm with your wife, a kiss, a scent, a body, that is what, over time, will turn you on; if you open your focus to an endless stream of ever-more-transgressive images of cybersex slaves, that is what it will take to turn you on. The ubiquity of sexual images does not free eros but dilutes it.(more)

Yes, I've seen the pictures. They are beautiful and, I might add, tastefully done but something still nags my mind about it all. That these beautiful creations have felt the need to share their charms with many for sake of self-esteem and curiosity rather than with one in favor of chastity and mystery.

Miss California's Warning for All of Us

I haven't been much interested in the Miss USA pageant since I quit salivating over the lingerie adds in the newspaper back in Jr High. But unless you've been under a rock the last few days you have no doubt been hearing of the brouhaha over Miss California's response to the question on same sex "marriage."

A nice summary can be found over at Pearl Diver:

So Miss California got baited and reeled in at the Miss USA Pageant. And, of course, now she’s being fried by the oh-so-neutral mainstream media we’ve all come to know and love. I am so proud to be a Californian right now! First, We the People speak our minds and establish that in California, marriage is between one man and one woman. Then, our “little Miss,” responds to a loaded question posed by gay blogger, Perez Hilton, with a very diplomatic, but firm response, “I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised.” (more)

Pearl goes on to discuss an interesting phenomenon with the searches on the subject focusing on the possibility that Miss C might be a Mormon. It's an interesting read as is the rest the blog over at Pearl's place.

But something caught my eye while reading the comments section. Avery interesting comment from Opine Editorials that said this:

"Miss Prejean is currently a student at San Diego Christian College, which is associated with Shadow Mountain Community Church at whose International Ministry Center Miss Prejean has volunteered. While virtually any faith would be proud to count Miss Prejean a member, it appears she is currently affiliated Southern Baptist.Here's the wrinkle: Miss Prejean's educational background would have been part of her application for the Miss USA pageant, to which all judges would have been given access. Mr. Hilton likely knew Miss Prejean's Christian faith when he targeted his highly divisive question at her. Donald Trump, the pageant owner, attributes the question to her "bad luck." I'm not so sure."

And I think he is on to something here. I think Miss California was targeted specifically for her views on this subject and I think it bodes ill for all of us.

STR says this:

The fact is, decent Americans are the ones being bullied here, citizens who are people of conscience, overflowing with tolerance in the classic sense, but are being pushed around and oppressed because they disagree with the extreme views of the minority. Instead of making the case for traditional marriage, maybe we should also point out what's really going on behind the rhetoric that appeals to fairness and equality.

Let me tell you what’s really going on here.
Good people with honest differences with the Homosexual agenda are being bullied.

First, Americans are incredibly tolerant of homosexuality, especially considering the moral concerns lots of folks have with it. Same-sex couples have been getting married for years in private ceremonies. No one interferes, and no one should.

Americans are happy to give equal rights, and that is done virtually everywhere. However, they do not want their arms twisted into approving something they do not think is good for America or for families. That’s the real issue. (more)

The expansion of hate law legislation ( a dubious idea to begin with) only adds to the concern for the loss of religious freedom and free speech.
Hate Crimes Legislation Draws Criticism from Christian Groups

And in order to pass the legislation proponents often (surprise) play fast and loose with the facts.

From OneNewsNow
Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, notes that Democrats were forced to eliminate a key portion of the bill -- the findings section. "We exposed the fact that they claimed, they have fraudulent claims that there was an epidemic of hate against homosexuals and drag queens, transgenders -- and that claim was the foundation of the bill," she notes. "They claimed that homosexuals are fleeing across state lines to avoid persecution, and that perpetrators are crossing state lines to commit crimes against these gays, lesbians, and transgenders, and that they have trouble purchasing goods and services or finding employment. We nailed them on the fact that that's a lie." Lafferty says during yesterday's markup hearing, Democrats neglected to mention that in America -- a country of 300 million people -- there have been only 1,521 cases of hate against homosexual, bisexual, and transgender people. (more)

Lifesite shows us what may be at stake:

...In a motion almost completely ignored by the mainstream media, the Judiciary Committee voted 15-12 to allow the hotly contested H.R. 1913, known as the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Act of 2009, to go forward.

The measure would grant the federal government a new authority to prosecute any violent crime anywhere in the country that is perceived to be "motivated by prejudice" against a number of protected characteristics, including "sexual orientation" and "gender identity."
Christian leaders are particularly concerned that attempts to secure the right to speak against the homosexual lifestyle and its normalization have failed. Among many rejected proposals for the bill was one offered by Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, which would have included a clause ensuring ministers could not be prosecuted for abetting a "hate crime" because they preached the Christian perspective on homosexuality.

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the Congressman who introduced the bill, claimed the bill posed no danger to Christian free speech, saying that it "only applies to bias-motivated violent crimes and does not impinge public speech or writing in any way." Section 10 of H.R. 1913 states: "Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution."

Yet free speech advocates have pointed out that under current U.S. law, any action that "abets, counsels, commands, [or] induces" a perceived "hate crime" shares in the guilt of that crime, and is therefore punishable.

The danger posed by the "hate crime" legislation to Christian ministers was confirmed when Congress considered practically identical legislation in 2007. Then, Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala., admitted during a hearing on the measure that it could be used to prosecute pastors for preaching the biblical perspective on homosexuality, given the perception that it may have "induced" a later hate crime. ...(more)

Marriage: A Hill to Die On

Though the meat of the article focuses mainly on the political question of which I could give a rat's patootie, I agree with the sentiments expressed here. Namely, "the latest demand is never the last."
Said before but worth repeating-and often, the redefining of marriage has nothing to do with civil rights and is a radical social experiment that has disastrous consequences for our society and our children as well as our religious freedoms...

From the Spectator blog:

...Over and over, we find ourselves fighting what is essentially a defensive battle against the forces of organized radicalism who insist that "social justice" requires that we grant their latest demand.

We know, however, that their latest demand is never their last demand. Grant the radicals everything they demand today, and tomorrow they will return with new demands that they insist are urgently necessary to satisfy the requirements of social justice.

When they refer to themselves as "progressives," radicals express their own basic truth: Their method of operation is always to move steadily forward, seeking a progressive series of victories, each new gain exploited to lay the groundwork for the next advance, as the opposition progressively yields terrain. Such is the remorseless aggression of radicalism that conservatives forever find themselves contemplating the latest "progressive" demand and asking, "Is this a hill worth dying on?" ...

...Some conservatives are wholly persuaded by the arguments of same-sex marriage advocates. Others, however, are merely unprincipled cowards and defeatists. Concerned about maintaining their intellectual prestige, some elitists on the Right do not wish to associate themselves with Bible-thumping evangelicals. Or, disparaging the likelihood of successful opposition, they advocate pre-emptive surrender rather than waging a fight that will put conservatism on the losing side of the issue.

Yet if the defense of traditional marriage -- an ancient and honorable institution -- is not a "hill worth dying on," what is? ...

The Loss of Religious Freedom and Freedom of Speech

As a follow up to a previous post, also by the Washington Post, on what the redefining of marriage will cost. World wide, the freedom of speech, long a cherished bullwark of western civilization, is under assault and any many cases has been killed.

For years, the Western world has listened aghast to stories out of Iran, Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern nations of citizens being imprisoned or executed for questioning or offending Islam. Even the most seemingly minor infractions elicit draconian punishments. ...

...Among the new blasphemers is legendary French actress Brigitte Bardot, who was convicted last June of "inciting religious hatred" for a letter she wrote in 2006 to then-Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, saying that Muslims were ruining France. It was her fourth criminal citation for expressing intolerant views of Muslims and homosexuals. Other Western countries, including Canada and Britain, are also cracking down on religious critics.

Emblematic of the assault is the effort to pass an international ban on religious defamation supported by United Nations General Assembly President Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann. Brockmann is a suspended Roman Catholic priest who served as Nicaragua's foreign minister in the 1980s under the Sandinista regime, the socialist government that had a penchant for crushing civil liberties before it was tossed out of power in 1990.... (more)

Beetle has some examples of actual healthcare professionals who have been pressured to violate ethical standards.

And over at Get Religion they're also talking about the WaPo article and have pulled in a number of different viewpoints on the matter like this one from GayPatriot:

Ms. Salmon cites a number of examples where individuals, organizations and entrepreneurs were fired for, fimed for or barred from refusing service to or inclusion of gay people. Now, I personally think these groups are wrong to so exclude gays, but they’re not requiring me to buy their product or participate in their activities.

At the same time, if a gay group wanted to exclude Christians from its membership, it should be free to do so. Their right to do that would come from the First Amendment’s clause on “the right of the people peaceably to assemble” and also possibly the Ninth Amendment.

But, these constitutional protections don’t seem to be a barrier to gay groups in their zeal to reduce the freedom of private individuals and organizations. They are prevailing in courts according to Ms. Salmon “because an individual’s religious views about homosexuality cannot be used to violate gays’ right to equal treatment under the law.”

Say what? That’s not equal treatment under the law. That’s using the law to limit individuals’ freedom, just as it would be if Christians used the law to mandate that gay organizations include ex-gays or gay business serve the Christian Coalition. (more)

Redefining Marriage Will Cost You

A dangerous social experiment that will effect our culture and our children. How does the same sex issue effect you? Just your religious freedom and your conscience.
And so it has begun. From the Washington Post:

Faith organizations and individuals who view homosexuality as sinful and refuse to provide services to gay people are losing a growing number of legal battles that they say are costing them their religious freedom.
The lawsuits have resulted from states and communities that have banned discrimination based on sexual orientation. Those laws have created a clash between the right to be free from discrimination and the right to freedom of religion, religious groups said, with faith losing. They point to what they say are ominous recent examples:

-- A Christian photographer was forced by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission to pay $6,637 in attorney's costs after she refused to photograph a gay couple's commitment ceremony.

-- A psychologist in Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a lesbian about her relationship.

-- Christian fertility doctors in California who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient were barred by the state Supreme Court from invoking their religious beliefs in refusing treatment.

-- A Christian student group was not recognized at a University of California law school because it denies membership to anyone practicing sex outside of traditional marriage. (more)

Go see the ad over at Self Evident Truths then go over to the NOM -National Organization for Marriage and get informed.

Sharia OK with Obama's Top Lawyer

Scary stuff...
From HumanEvents:

President Obama has tabbed the former dean of Yale Law School, Harold Koh, to become the legal adviser for the State Department. Among numerous questionable and controversial statements, Koh has said that the “war on terror” -- a term which the Obama Administration has already quietly abandoned, was “obsessive.” And in a 2007 speech, according to a lawyer who was in the audience, Koh opined that “in an appropriate case, he didn’t see any reason why sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States.”...

...he concluded, the idea that “there’s one law for everybody...I think that's a bit of a danger.” ... (more)