Pages

Photobucket

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

15 Million Dollar Thought Tax!

by Beetle Blogger

15 Million Dollar Thought Tax
Taxing the Church to Feed the State

In what amounts to a free speech fine reminiscent of a scene out of Robin Hood, San Francisco City government is assessing a 15 million dollar tax on a tax exempt church. This thinly veiled retaliatory move for church involvement in the passing of proposition 8 is outrageous and clearly steps over the line in the separation of church and state.

Government has no say in church affairs, including what morality gets preached or how church officials and their parishioners vote. It doesn’t matter how unpopular the prop 8 vote was in San Francisco, government tax agencies can not be used as weapons to beat churches into submission, or cow them into silence.

Noam Chomsky said: “If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don’t like. Goebbels was in favour of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re in favour of freedom of speech, that means you’re in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.”

Separation of church and state is just that, freedom for the church to speak and act independently from government authority, and free from reprisal. This action by San Francisco City to quash the free exercise of speech and religion smacks of intimidation and corruption at City Hall.

Is the economy so bad, are budget issues so dire that we have to raid the donation coffers of the local parish, Mayor?

—Beetle Blogger

[Read full article here…]

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

It is a Solemn Day

It is a Solemn Day NYT2009012012141335C Husband and Wife 

From United Families International

The air is crisp and cold. Flags are waving. People are cheering. The military salutes. Another President is inaugurated. And people who care about families, marriage between a man and a woman, the sanctity of life and religious liberty stand by the side and wait with baited breath.

Is he really going to abolish all abortion restrictions?  Will he repeal the Defense of Marriage Act?  Will he appoint judges who will strip churches of their right to preach their beliefs?  Will he ask Congress to ratify the most terrifying treaty to come from the UN?

It is a solemn day when a President is inaugurated who promises to oppose the values that this country was founded on.

It is a solemn day when the strident voices of feminism at the United Nations are cheering.

It is a solemn day when those who feel the State has more say over the education of a child than the parents are giddy with enthusiasm.

It is a solemn day when those who promote the taking of the lives of unborn children are counting how many more abortions will now be able to take place.

It is a solemn day.

Those of us who have fought so hard to achieve the victories of the DOMA, Proposition 8, the defeat of the ratification CEDAW treaty, the rights of doctors to refuse abortions, and the ban on partial-birth abortions are saying, “We will not give up!” We will not allow the family to be destroyed! We will not allow our children to be raised by the State! We will not allow the gay-agenda to define the environment in which our children will be raised!

The battlefield is being readied. The forces are assembling. Choose to become engaged. Decide that you will be a part of the fight. United Families International will help you. We will be the voice of thousands around the world who want to be successful in this battle. Together we will fight for the values we hold most dear. Together we will defend families, sanctity of life, traditional marriage and religious liberty.

Beverly Rice, UFI President

O God of our Many Understandings: A “Prayer” for the Nation and Our Next President, Barack Obama


Today we celebrate the inauguration of the first black president of the United States of America. However, the ceremony has already been tainted by the words of openly gay Episcopal Bishop, Rev. Gene Robinson.

He claims his words are a prayer. But instead of words of sincere gratitude, sincere faith in God, sincere humility, Robinson’s words drip with pretentiously didactic cliches promoting his own agenda.

At one point during the prayer, people laugh-- not for their own irreverence, but for the irreverence of Robinson’s words.

A Prayer for the Nation and Our Next President, Barack Obama

By The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire

Opening Inaugural Event

Lincoln Memorial, Washington, DC

January 18, 2009

O God of our many understandings, we pray that you will…

Bless us with tears – for a world in which over a billion people exist on less than a dollar a day, where young women in many lands are beaten and raped for wanting an education, and thousands die daily from malnutrition, malaria, and AIDS.

Bless this nation with anger – anger at discrimination, at home and abroad, against refugees and immigrants, women, people of color, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

Bless us with discomfort – at the easy, simplistic “answers” we’ve preferred to hear from our politicians, instead of the truth, about ourselves and our world, which we need to face if we are going to rise to the challenges of the future.

Bless us with patience – and the knowledge that none of what ails us will be “fixed” anytime soon, and the understanding that our new president is a human being, not a messiah. [Laughter from crowd]

Bless us with humility – open to understanding that our own needs must always be balanced with those of the world.

Bless us with freedom from mere tolerance – replacing it with a genuine respect and warm embrace of our differences.

Bless us with compassion and generosity – remembering that every religion’s God judges us by the way we care for the most vulnerable.

And God, we give you thanks for your child Barack, as he assumes the office of President of the United States.

Give him wisdom beyond his years, inspire him with Lincoln’s reconciling leadership style, President Kennedy’s ability to enlist our best efforts, and Dr. King’s dream of a nation for ALL the people.

Give him a quiet heart, for our Ship of State needs a steady, calm captain.

Give him stirring words, for we will need to be inspired and motivated to make the personal and common sacrifices necessary to facing the challenges ahead.

Make him color-blind, reminding him of his own words that under his leadership, there will be neither red nor blue states, but the United States.

Help him remember his own oppression as a minority, drawing on that experience of discrimination, that he might seek to change the lives of those who are still its victims.

Give him the strength to find family time and privacy, and help him remember that even though he is president, a father only gets one shot at his daughters’ childhoods.

And please, God, keep him safe. We know we ask too much of our presidents, and we’re asking FAR too much of this one. We implore you, O good and great God, to keep him safe. Hold him in the palm of your hand – that he might do the work we have called him to do, that he might find joy in this impossible calling, and that in the end, he might lead us as a nation to a place of integrity, prosperity and peace.

AMEN.

© Copyright 2004-2006 by The Diocese of New Hampshire, The Episcopal Church

 

Monday, January 19, 2009

Happy Martin Luther King Day: Fight the FOCA

Happy Martin Luther King Day! We have achieved so many dreams for civil rights in this country. We have a black president! Children of all races go to school together. No one has to drink from a separate drinking fountain.

Despite all of these beautiful advances, unborn children have no rights. Their lives are at the mercy of their mothers’ choice.

Came across this post at the Opine-Editorials blog. It has some compelling ideas about how to fight the Foca.

Newly Minted Federalists: Freedom of Choice Act

by Op-Ed

"Newly Minted Federalists" is what Opine contributor Fitz called foes of the Federal Marriage Amendment back in 2007. Then, several senators voted against bringing the amendment to a vote on the grounds that marriage was a social issue best left to the states. Fitz doubted their sincerity at the time, and perhaps with good reason. The proposed amendment was voted down primarily on party lines with the Democrats voting against. Democrats historically have not been known for their support of states' rights.

Federalism, it seemed, was simply a convenient fig leaf behind which senators at the time hoped to hide their opposition to marriage as currently constituted. Well now we have a chance to put these newly minted federalists to the test.

Democrats are planning to introduce a sweeping bill taking away what little latitude has been left to the states in that other contentious social issue of our time: abortion. Senate Democrats, flush from their gains in the 2008 election plan on reintroducing the Freedom Of Choice Act, a bill designed to crush existing state laws regulating abortion, many of which have already been found constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

I have included below the names of all Senators who opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2007. I cannot research myself all of these senators to see which gave "states' rights" as their reason, but I urge Opine readers to call their senators and ask if they voted for states' rights in 2007 whether they plan on voting the same way when it comes to federalizing abortion. While you're at it, feel free to call President Elect Obama's office and get his take. In 2007 he opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment on the grounds that it should be left to the states but he promises to vote against states' rights and sign the Freedom of Choice Act if it makes it to his desk.

Senators voting against the Federal Marriage Amendment:

Email links for senators: Family Leader Network Map

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCain (R-AZ)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sununu (R-NH)
Wyden (D-OR)

Full results of the vote can be found here. Votes on a house version in 2006 can be found here.



Sunday, January 18, 2009

Google H8 Maps

prop 8 maps

Facilitating Dreams of Stormy Portent

by Beetle Babee

Martin Luther King had a dream…..but not all dreams aim as high as his did.  Some aim a little closer to home:

“I had a dream. In in I saw HATEFUL actions, but of course I would NEVER advocate any of them.

In my dream the LDS Temple, as well as Catholic and Christian Right churches were vandalized daily since gays decided they all have WAY TOO MUCH MONEY if they can purchase H8 and demonize gays; businesses who supported PROP 8 were also vandalized for the same reason.

White powder shows up in tithing envelopes.

People spray-painted HATE or H8 on the sidewalks outside with arrows pointing towards gay-hating church doors.

Death threats and bomb scares disrupted H8 church services every Sunday across the USA.

I am NOT advocating these measures…..but they would not surprise me either.”

******************

These are the words of one deranged and slightly off-kilter commenter who frequents this site and who obviously has some fairly intense emotional build-up over the passage of proposition 8.

Now, imagine this guy knew you, not personally, but imagine he knew you donated money to the p8 political campaign and decided you had deeply and personally offended him?  Imagine he decided to make it personal in return?  Imagine he knew where you lived, had your street address, including how to get there— and imagine all this information was freely provided on the internet for no other purpose than to harass you?

Welcome to www.EightMaps.com where we provide the h8 maps for you to vent your hate!  Welcome every crazy, loony whack-job and thrill seeker!  If you don’t like how the election turned out, take your frustration out on your good neighbors who voted for it!

Sounds pretty American doesn’t it?  Let’s ask Tom Hanks about that…..but while we’re waiting for a real man’s answer, who is going to stand up and stop this kind of harassment from happening?

Who is going to remind the slightly unhinged gay activists that the election is over, and that it’s time to begin promoting healing and unity?

Not the able Governor.  Not our illustrious Senators.  Not the powerful media watch dogs either, they’re all too busy watching…  All these have shamefully remained in stony silence throughout the ugly aftermath of the marriage campaign.

It is time to step forward and put an end to the ugly politics and personal destruction of people who have the right and freedom to vote their conscience, free from harassment and intimidation.

After all, this isn’t the mafia, Venezuela, or communist Russia, this is America.

—Beetle Blogger

 

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Indiana| Next Up For Marriage Amendment

Indiana Next Up for Marriage Next Up For Marriage: Indiana

by Charlie Butts, OneNewsNow

Indiana wants the people to decide on a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage.

The Indiana Family Institute is at the helm of the drive. Spokesman Curt Smith admits efforts in the past have not been successful.

"We've met with a lot of legislative roadblocks," he shares. "But not to be deterred, we submitted new legislation, working with several very courageous state legislators -- and [we] hope that the Indiana General Assembly will pass it this session and allow the voters in the future to decide that marriage should be given the full protection of Indiana's constitution."

Under Indiana law, the measure would have to pass in two separately elected legislative bodies to go to the voters, which means a minimum of four years before it would appear on a ballot.

"But we're not going back off, and we're not going back down," Smith promises.
He believes the residents of the Hoosier State want the chance to make the decision. "I believe if given a chance to vote on this, Indiana would overwhelmingly pass it -- as have about two-thirds of Americans in the states where they've had the privilege of voting on this."

Currently, 30 states have constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage. Another 11 have statutes banning same-sex "marriage."

-----

Related Articles:

MSNBC: Some Want to Revive calls for gay Marriage Ban

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Obama Supported Gay 'Marriage' Before He Opposed It

obama for gay marriage

Obama Supported Gay ‘Marriage’ Before He Opposed It

by Jennifer Mesko

'Is this what Obama supporters meant by change we can believe in?'

A gay-activist newspaper in Chicago has discovered that President-elect Barack Obama supported same-sex "marriage" during his run for the Illinois Senate in 1996. Conservatives and liberals alike seem irritated by the flip-flop.

In 1996, Outlines newspaper, which merged with Windy City Times in 2000, surveyed candidates for all levels of elected office. Obama's answer was very clear: “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.”

But with an eye on the White House, Obama quickly dropped his support for gay "marriage" in favor of civil unions. More recently, he has said marriage is a religious issue and a state issue.

"I wonder, is this what Obama supporters meant by change we can believe in?" asked conservative talk-show host Sean Hannity.

Obama's transition team has had no comment on the report.

Jenny Tyree, marriage analyst at Focus on the Family Action, said: "I wish this was a change in policy we could take seriously, but unfortunately, Mr. Obama's actions do not support the lip service he's given to marriage. He did not support the state marriage amendments that passed in November.
"His position on marriage seems to be one of political expediency rather than personal conviction."

Link

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Barack Obama: Son of Promise, Child of Hope

From Good Sense Politics comes a story of propaganda and indoctrination.

“Messiah” Obama Book Required Reading in California Schools

Barack Obama - Son of Promise, Child of Hope
A client of mine expressed her extreme frustration over discovering that her children's school district (Los Lomitas in Menlo Park, California) is requiring that the controversial book Barack Obama: Son of Promise, Child of Hope be read in every classroom as part of a mandatory curriculum in celebration of President-Elect Obama. Upon examining this book for herself, this mother was horrified to find a propaganda-laden story describing Obama with tears in his eyes, being called forth by a God-figure called "Hope" to lead the nation to their salvation first as a prophet (the book compares him by name to Moses and Joseph of Egypt) and then as a "Messiah."

She also described to me a picture of Obama kneeling in anguished prayer with the rays of "Hope" shining down on him from heaven, more than a clear allusion to Christ suffering in the garden of Gethsemane for the sins of mankind. The final picture, she described, depicts Obama hands outstretched and glory shining in rays from his body, the classical Christ image of Christian iconography.

[Read more…]

*Be sure to take a look in the comments section where blog author WhoisJohnGalt? adds some commentary on the book from reviewers at Amazon.

UK Christian Care Home Refuses to Ask Patrons about Sexual Orientation & Refuses to Display Homosexual Promotional Literature| Loses Funding

elderly 2

Christian Care Home Loses Funding Over Homosexuality Stance

By Maria Mackay, Christianity Today

Brighton & Hove City Council has pulled thousands of pounds worth of funding from a Christian care home because of its religious beliefs on homosexuality.

The council withdrew £13,000 of funding when the care home refused the council’s request to ask the elderly Christian residents about their sexual orientation every three months. The home also refused demands from the council that it use images of homosexuals in its promotional literature and show staff a Stonewall presentation on ‘gay rights’.

The home is run by Pilgrim Homes, a charity serving elderly Christians for more than 200 years. Its residents include former missionaries and a retired church minister.

Phil Wainwright, director of human resources at Pilgrim Homes, said he was told by the council that the home must ask residents if they were lesbian, gay, bisexual, heterosexual or ‘unsure’, even if they objected.

But managers at the care home told the council that meeting its demands would “unduly distress” the residents and go against their Christian ethos. They also informed the council that residents over the age of 80 in particular would regard probing from the council on sexual matters as “hostile and intrusive”.

“There was a strong feeling among people in the home that the questions were inappropriate and intrusive,” said Mr Wainwright. “They felt they had come to Pilgrim Homes because of its Christian ethos and were upset they were not protected from such intrusions.”

The council responded by accusing the home of “institutionalised homophobia” and withdrew the funding, which was being used to pay for warden services in sheltered housing.

Pilgrim Homes said it now plans to take Brighton & Hove Council to court for religious discrimination. The legal bid is being financially supported by The Christian Institute’s Legal Defense Fund.

The Christian Institute’s Mike Judge said: “Brighton Council is displaying a very prejudiced and discriminatory attitude to the religious beliefs held by the elderly residents of the home run by Pilgrim Homes.

“After a lifetime of Christian service, these elderly men and women deserve to live in a restful environment which supports and nurtures their Christian faith.

“This case is the latest in a series of troubling incidents where the rights of Christians are seemingly being ignored in favour of ‘gay rights’.”

[Hat-tip: Secular Heretic]

 

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

CA Lawyers File Lawsuit to Block Campaign Finance Records From Public View

I'm Scott Eckern! e coyote

Pro-Marriage Supporters Face Threats in California

by Steve Lawrence, AP writer

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Supporters of the ballot measure that banned same-sex "marriage" in California have filed a lawsuit seeking to block their campaign finance records from public view, saying the reports have led to the harassment of donors.

"No one should have to worry about getting a death threat because of the way he or she votes," said James Bopp, Jr., an attorney representing two groups that supported Proposition 8, Protect Marriage.com and the National Organization for Marriage California. "This lawsuit will protect the right of all people to help support causes they agree with, without having to worry about harassment or threats."

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in federal court in Sacramento, asks the court to order the secretary of state's office to remove all donations for the proposition from its website. It also asks the court to relieve the two groups and "all similarly situated persons" from having to meet the state's campaign disclosure requirements. That would include having to file a final report on Proposition 8 contributions at the end of January, as well as reports for any future campaigns the groups undertake.

Proposition 8, approved by 52.3 percent of California voters on Nov. 4, reversed a state Supreme Court decision allowing homosexual marriage. The measure's opponents have asked the Supreme Court to overturn it.

The lawsuit filed Wednesday cites a series of incidents in which those who gave money to support Proposition 8 received threatening phone calls, e-mails and postcards. One woman claims she was told: "If I had a gun, I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter." Another donor reported a broken window, one said a fliyer calling him a bigot was distributed around his hometown and others received envelopes containing suspicious white power, according to the lawsuit.

Businesses employing people who contributed to the Proposition 8 campaign have been threatened with boycotts, the suit said.

Supporters of the homosexual marriage ban fear the donor backlash will hurt their efforts to raise money in the future, perhaps to fight an initiative seeking to overturn the ban.

"Several donors have indicated that they will not contribute to committee plaintiffs or similar organizations in the future because of the threats and harassment directed at them as a result of their contributions...and the public disclosure of that fact," the lawsuit said.

The suit said courts have held that laws requiring disclosure of campaign contributions can be overturned or restricted if a group can make "an uncontroverted showing" that identifying its members can result in economic reprisals or threats of physical coercion. California's Political Reform Act, which voters approved in 1974, established disclosure requirements for candidates and campaign committees.

[Read entire article here]