Getting Back to the ABCs...

Blog is Moving!

2008-02-18T20:57:00.001-06:00

Judge White's blog is now located at http://retiredjudges.org/wordpress/

A Constitutional Law Lesson

2006-10-31T16:15:00.000-06:00

Citizens in Berkely, Michigan, are making news for standing up for what the First Amendment actually says: http://www.candgnews.com/Homepage-Articles/10-25-06/FG-NATIVITY.asp Here's an interesting point in the article:

"Meg Boker argued to keep the nativity scene where it is, saying that her children are inundated with immoral and objectionable material every day on television and the Internet, yet she has to fight for any kind of religious or spiritual symbols to be displayed in public. 'When we force religion indoors, we become less tolerant as a society,' she continued. 'We never get to learn about our brothers and sisters.'”

Her assertion - a powerful one - is that the First Amendment simply does not protect people against being offended. Thomas Jefferson affirmed that proposition in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, the icon most closely identified with the concept of "separation of church and state" when he wrote that, "...the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions...." Elsewhere Jefferson wrote:

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. ME 2:221

A little critical thinking puts the issue in perspective: why is it that the same First Amendment free speech clause that protects the "rights" of persons who wish to speak ill of God shouldn't protect the rights of persons who wish to speak well of Him in public? Regrettably, the Supreme Court's misapplication of the "separation of church and state" principle has given us what Justice Arthur Goldberg warned could become "...a brooding and pervasive devotion to the secular and a passive, or even active, hostility to the religious."

Interestingly, the Oxford English Dictionary notes that G.J. Holyoake coined the term "secularism" in 1854 in his book Principles of Secularism to express "a certain positive and ethical element, which the terms `infidel,' `skeptic,' [and] `atheist' do not express." "Secularism" is a doctrine, spirit, or consciousness advocating the temporal (as opposed to the sacred) foundation of "... individual ideas, attitudes, beliefs, or interests." The term comes from the Latin root "Saeculum meaning `age'; `to be secular' means to `be oriented toward this age.'"
One need look no farther than the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins in footnote 11 to become convinced that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) regards secularism (aka secular humanism) is a "religion" in the sense that that word is now popularly defined. Modern dictionaries define "religion" as a set or system of beliefs. Since a "belief" is defined as strongly held convictions, opinions, and thoughts on which one bases actions, it is a fact that virtually all conscious action is by definition, "religious."

Regarding "separation of church and state," in an interesting essay, Terence Jeffrey discusses Justice Rehnquist's observation that "It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history...." Beginning in the early 1960's America's constitutionally-authorized-religious-pluralism began morphing into a judicially-imposed-public-secularism. Having been force fed this diet for two generations now, the malnutrition is increasingly evident, with families that are in distress, a jail population that has tripled over the past twenty years and an acute case of "constitutional-understanding-deficit-disorder" that threatens the very future of our nation.

Still, we can take comfort in the words of abolitionist Frederic Douglass who observed:
"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." [Source: Douglass, Frederick. [1857] (1985). "The Significance of Emancipation in the West Indies." Speech, Canandaigua, New York, August 3, 1857; collected in pamphlet by author. In The Frederick Douglass Papers. Series One: Speeches, Debates, and Interviews. Volume 3: 1855-63. Edited by John W. Blassingame. New Haven: Yale University Press, p. 204.]

If a few Believers in Berkely, MI can agitate on behalf of authentic constitutionalism concerning a creche display, imagine what God can and wants to do in the state of Louisiana with our highest per capita church attendance in America! I sense a refreshing blowing in the wind, and it's none too soon. Take it from this trial judge: THE JAILS ARE FULL!!!

Judge Darrell White (Retired)

20 Logic Errors

2006-04-03T14:55:00.000-05:00

20 Logic errors used by evolutionists when discussing origins

1. Fuzzy Words

We believe, we think

Given enough time, it will happen

Might work

Must have formed
“Those life forms must have evolved in the absence of oxygen,…”

Could possibly have been

My guess is

Seems like

Use of “fuzzy words” demonstrates that evolutionists do not have the evidence to support their claims.

2. Half Truth

Half true and half false

Often more effective than the complete lie

Example: The Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to isolated systems, so it is not relevant to evolution, because the earth is an open system

3. Bandwagon
The appeal to “everyone agrees”
Example: All scientists accept evolution
No real scientist accepts creation
To see a list of scientists that believe in a literal 6-day creation got to: www.AnswersInGenesis.org

4. Glittering Generalities
A broad oversimplification of an explanation
Example: Scientists may disagree about the mechanism of evolution, but all agree that evolution is a fact.

5. Loaded Words
Using emotionally-charged words to influence a reaction
Example: Creationism is a tactic by the “Christian right” to force their religious agenda on our children

6. Association
Associating something you want to criticize with something people dislike
Example: Associating creation in the same sentence with astrology or known myths

7. Ridicule
Attempting to provoke a dislike against a person or idea by name-calling
Example: Creationists are troglodytes and flat-earthers

8. Circumstantial Evidence
Assuming physical evidences are related
Example: We are here therefore we must have evolved (this is often the best evidence used to support evolution)
Example: Fossil horses arranged into an evolutionary sequence

9. Either-Or Fallacy
Presenting only one possible solution when others are justified
Example: If we teach creation then we will have to teach every other creation myth

10. Analogy
Improperly drawing parallels while ignoring pertinent differences
Example: Evolution is a fact like digestion or gravity

11. Authority
Relying on authority rather than logic and evidence
Example: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”
Example: Citing one scholar who claims the days of Genesis could have been long ages

12. Extrapolation
Assuming a trend beyond what the data permits
Example: Radioactive dating methods prove the earth is 4.6 billion years old
Example: Mutations are the mechanism for evolution

13. Best-in-Field Fallacy
An appeal to overlook discrepancies in a theory
Example: We don’t have all the answers, but evolution is the best model we have

14. Shifting the Burden of Proof
Forgetting that it is your responsibility to prove a claim, not your opponents to disprove it
Example: Claiming that creation has no proof and therefore should not be taught, when evolution has never been proven or is even capable of proof

15. Ad Hominem
Attacking the person instead of the argument
Example: Asserting that creationists are ultra-conservative, do not have real degrees, or are liars
Example: Accusing creationists of quoting out of context when they did not

16. Equivocation
Confusing the issue by using vague terms or changing the definitions of words
Example: Changing the definition of science to support only evolution
Example: Not clearly defining terms such as natural selection or macroevolution

17. Card Stacking
Listing all the points in your favor while ignoring the serious points against it
Example: Pouncing on one item by your opponent but ignoring the major points of his/her argument
Example: Trying to prove evolution using finch beaks or antibiotic resistant bacteria but ignoring all the problems

18. Bluffing
Appearing to know more than you do
Example: Making the claim that the fossil record is full of transitional fossils
Example: Dinosaurs evolved into birds

19. Appeasement
The appeal that we're not really so different
Example: Most religions don’t have a problem with evolution

20. Visualization
Using imagery to mislead or to substitute for evidence
Example: The evolutionary tree of life
Example: The geologic column
Example: Reconstruction of alleged “apemen”

Like a Boat without a rudder

2006-02-11T14:42:00.000-06:00

«A federal judge hearing a constitutional challenge to a Kansas law requiring doctors, teachers and others to report underage sex between consenting youths said the state presented no credible evidence that underage sex is always harmful.U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten stopped short of issuing a decision from the bench, but he repeatedly interrupted Thursday's closing arguments by Assistant Attorney General Steve Alexander to challenge his assertions."Motives are irrelevant - I want to deal with facts," Marten said. "Where is the clear, credible evidence that underage sex is always injurious? If you tell me because it is illegal - I reject that," Marten said»

AP Wire | 02/09/2006 | Judge: No credible evidence underage sex always harmful:
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/state/13823878.htm

Commentary: Of course if an elected trial judge were to utter such nonsense, the line would begin forming to oppose his re-election. However, Judge Marten - clutching his federal commission - could care less about public opinion. In fact there are only 435 "natural enemies" of the Judge Martens of America. And if hizhonor reads the paper Monday morning and finds that no impeachment inquiry has been initiated against him, then in the grand scheme of things, he has been officially vindicated and every member of the House of Representatives has, by his/her silence, become complicit in issuing Judge Marten a :-) of continued "good behaviour."

That is because impeachment must begin in the House of Representatives. See Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. It's that simple (and hard). Remember James Madison's words, "In republican governments, the legislative authority necessarily predominates." Federalist #51.

And if "we the people" don't take the time to contact our congressman's office to respectfully insist that that such behaviour is not "good" and deserves impeachment, we become "principals" by "aiding and abetting" the judge's misfeasance. For in a self-governing nation, there are no innocent bystanders; only those guilty of bystanding!

Judge Darrell White (Retired)

Let's Stop Paying the ACLU to Sue Us!

2005-12-29T07:22:00.000-06:00

So far Rodney Alexander and Bobby Jindal are the only members of the Louisiana congressional delegation who are cosponsors of the Public Expression of Religion Act, or PERA (H.R.2679). The bill would prohibit judges in civil suits involving the First Amendment's Establishment Clause from awarding attorney's fees to those offended by religious symbols or actions in the public square – such as a Ten Commandments display in a courthouse or a cross on a county seal. If passed, the ACLU would have to spring for its own attorney’s fees in suits such as the one pending in Tangipahoa Parish where it persuaded a former-state-ACLU-president-turned-federal-district-judge to order the duly elected parish school board members to stop opening their meetings with prayer.

Introduced by Congressman Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind in May of this year, the legislation declares that its purpose is “to eliminate the chilling effect on the constitutionally protected expression of religion by State and local officials that results from the threat that potential litigants may seek damages and attorney's fees.” As WorldNetDaily reported, Hostettler's proposal would amend the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, to prohibit prevailing parties from being awarded attorney's fee in religious establishment cases, but not in other civil rights filings. This would prevent local governments from having to use taxpayer funds to pay the ACLU or similar organization when a case is lost, and also would protect elected officials from having to pay fees from their own pockets. For too long the ACLU has used the law to enrich itself at the expense of taxpayers and as a means to silence public officials who don't want to be sued personally. The ACLU says it is a civil rights organization that collects no fees for the many lawsuits it files to remove any reference to God from the public arena. Where does the money come from for these new newspaper ads? Where does the money come from to pay for the lavish ACLU headquarters in New York City and the six figure executive pay of its management? Much of it comes from your pocket. The ACLU files lawsuits against school districts, usually districts that have few funds, such as in Pontotoc, Mississippi. They then demand that the schools pay their legal fees, which often run in the $300 to $500 an hour range, plus expenses that include staying in luxury hotels. Under a bill passed by Congress years ago to help the civil rights movement, the schools have to hand the money to the ACLU to help them take away the authority of the local school board. The Public Expression of Religion Act (RH 2679) would put an end to tax payer funding for the ACLU. They would have to turn to Norman Lear and George Soros for their funding. The Public Expression of Religion Act would eliminate the federal rule that allows the ACLU to collect attorneys' fees when filing these kinds of lawsuits. In the past Congressman Hostettler has not found enough support in the House to bring his bill to the floor; however, with the ACLU now filing lawsuits to remove "religious" reference from memorials to the veterans who have lost their lives fighting for our freedoms, there may be new momentum for the bill. Please call your congressman about the Public Expression of Religion Act. (Click here to hear interview of Congressman Hostettler and former ACLU attorney Rees Lloyd. This is an MP3 file)

Louisiana’s congressional delegation needs to hear from concerned citizens. After all, our next generation’s future depends on our actions today.

Ban All Holy Days!

2005-12-28T07:14:00.000-06:00

Constitutional Law Professor John Eidsmoe has issued the following tongue-in-cheek rationale for banning all holidays.
December 25 is now history, and the combatants in the "Christmas wars" have laid down their arms until next year. But the issues are far from resolved, and the conflict is far from over. Look for the guns to sound again come next December.
The problem with a ban on "Merry Christmas" is that it doesn't go far enough. To be consistent (though that is a rare virtue these days) we should consider banning all holidays that might offend someone. Looking at my 2006 calendar, I find many holidays at which some might take offense.
New Year's Day is an observance of the Gregorian calendar, an offense to those who don't accept the Gregorian calendar, who don't accept Jesus Christ as the central focus of human history, and who are offended by a calendar named after a Roman Catholic Pope. Let's ban it.
January 16, Martin Luther King Day, is offensive to racists. Some might say racists deserve to be offended, but what right have we to be judgmental? Besides, the day is also used to celebrate the birth of Robert E. Lee, and this is offensive to Yankees. Let's ban it.
February 2, Ground Hog Day, could be offensive to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and others who think it is demeaning to ground hogs, and also to those who think we should celebrate (or demean) another animal instead. Let's ban it.
February 12, Lincoln's birthday, is offensive to Southern secessionists and also to northerners who think Lincoln usurped powers in violation of the Constitution. Let's ban it.
February 22, Washington's birthday, is offensive to those who think Jefferson should have been our first President, and also to those who think the War for Independence was mean-spirited. Can you imagine how an Englishman must feel if he has to be in the United States on George Washington's birthday? We could balance Washington's birthday with Benedict Arnold Day, or King George III Day, but that could offend others. Let's just ban it.
Washington's and Lincoln's birthdays have now been combined into President's Day, February 20. But this offends anyone who is offended at anything that any President has ever done, and also offends those who didn't realize that every President was born on Monday. Let's ban it.
March 1, Ash Wednesday, offends all who do not want to observe the events leading to the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and also to those who are allergic to ashes. Let's ban it.
March 17, St. Patrick's Day, offends all who are not Irish. It sends a message of exclusion to those who are not Irish, causing them to believe that, at least on March 17, they are second-class citizens and not fully part of society. It also offends Scots who insist that St. Patrick was really a Scotsman, and it offends Englishmen who object to the work of St. Patrick in Christianizing Ireland and developing a written legal code for Ireland in advance of anything England had at the time. Let's ban it.
March 20, the first day of spring, is the day the pagan Celts and Germans celebrated the equinox with bonfires, orgies, sacrifices, and other pagan rituals. They haven't done much of this for over 1,000 years, but a non-pagan might be offended, so let's ban it.
April 1, April Fools' Day, demeans and degrades fools. It has also been designated a special day for atheists. Some theists might feel excluded by this, and likewise some atheists could be offended by the designation of a day that shows them for what they really are. Let's ban it.
April 2, the day Daylight Savings Time begins, offends those who don't want to get up an hour earlier (or later), offends those who object to any interference with God's time, and unduly burdens those who complain that the extra hour of sunlight burns the grass on their lawns. Let's ban it.
April 9, Palm Sunday; April 13, Passover; April 14, Good Friday; April 16, Easter. Obviously offensive. I will not say why, because even that would involve the mention of God. Let's ban them.
April 26, Administrative Professionals Day, sends a message of exclusion to those who are not administrators or who are unprofessional, and also is a burden on those who are required to buy flowers for administrative professionals or take them to lunch. Let's ban it.
May 14, Mother's Day, sends a message of exclusion to men, lesbians, and all who are not mothers. Let's ban it.
May 20, Armed Forces Day, endorses violence and sends a message of exclusion for those who didn't have the courage to serve their country. Let's ban it.
May 29, Memorial Day, sends a message of exclusion to those who didn't have the good fortune to die for their country. Let's ban it.
June 14, Flag Day, offends flag burners and their ilk. It could even lead to patriotism. Even worse, it could lead someone to say the Pledge of Allegiance, with that repugnant phrase "under God." Let's ban it.
June 18, Father's Day, demeans women and gays, and also demeans fathers because the day usually doesn't produce as much revenue at the cash registers as does Mother's Day. Let's ban it.
June 21, the First Day of Summer, is the pagan summer solstice (see March 20) and is discouraging to skiers and others who prefer cold weather. Let's ban it.
July 4, Independence Day, offends those who don't like the sound of firecrackers. Even worse, can you imagine how this day demeans those who can trace their ancestors to Tories? Observance of this day could lead impressionable young people to read the Declaration of Independence and be exposed to such offensive phrases as "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," "All men are created equal," "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," "appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world," and "firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence." Let's ban it.
August? My calendar shows no holidays during the month of August. This is blatant discrimination against the month of August, and also offends those who shudder at the thought of having to work all month while getting ready for another school year. Also, the hot days of August are sometimes called "dog days" because the constellation Sirius rises and sets with the sun at this time; this could be offensive to dog-lovers. Let's ban the whole month.
September 4, Labor Day, offends those who don't belong to labor unions, and also sends a message of exclusion to those who don't want to work. Let's ban it.
September 17, Constitution Day, honors 55 dead white males, sends a message of exclusion to those who favored the Articles of Confederation, and could encourage impressionable young people to read the Constitution and learn of its limitations on governmental powers. Let's ban it.
September 23, the First Day of Autumn, is the pagan autumnal equinox (see March 20) and also coincides with Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year. Let's ban it.
October 2, is the Jewish Yom Kippur, a holiday that burdens those who lack the self-discipline to fast and lays a guilt trip on people by suggesting that they have sins to atone for. Let's ban it.
October 9, Columbus Day, discriminates against Norwegians who want to honor Leif Ericson as the discoverer of America, and also demeans Native Americans who objected to being discovered. Let's ban it.
October 29, the beginning of Standard Time, offends those who don't want to drive home in the dark and those who now have less time to get a suntan. Let's ban it.
October 31, Halloween, establishes the pagan religion and sends a message of exclusion to those whose religious beliefs prevent them from dressing up as witches, ghosts and goblins. This isn't so bad, since those who object are mostly Christians and therefore outside the protection of the First Amendment. But the Roman Catholic Church as made October 31 All Hallows Eve, and it is also Reformation Day, the day Martin Luther posted the 95 Theses. Some churches even hold Reformation parties on Halloween night! Let's ban it, and ban the 95 Theses as well.
November 1, All Saints Day, sends a message of exclusion to sinners, even saved sinners. Let's ban it.
November 7, Election Day, discriminates against those who cannot vote, will not vote, or get out-voted. Besides, talk of "election" sounds Presbyterian. Let's ban it.
November 11, Veterans Day, not only sends a message of exclusion to those who did not have the courage to serve their country, but also is sexist since most veterans are men. Let's ban it.
November 23 – Thanksgiving? Thanks to Whom? The offensive religious implications are obvious, not to mention the fact that Thanksgiving is associated with the Pilgrim oppressors of Native Americans. Let's ban it.
December 16, the First Day of Chanukah, is offensive to the descendants of Antiochus Epiphanes, discriminates against those who can't spell Hanukkah or pronounce Chanukah, and against those who prefer darkness to the candle light of menorahs. Let's ban it.
December 22, the First Day of Winter, is the pagan winter solstice. (See March 20, June 21, and September 23.) Since pagans insist that paganism is a religion entitled to the protection of the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, it should also be subject to the prohibitions of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, though admittedly that would be applying to the Constitution a logic that the courts are reluctant to use. Let's ban it.
December 25, Christmas Day. The offensiveness of this holiday is too obvious to mention. I shouldn't even have used the word "Christmas." Let's ban it.
December 26, the First Day of Kwanzaa, sends a message of exclusion to non-Africans and to all those who don't know what Kwanzaa is and are too lazy to find out. Let's ban it.
December 31, New Year’s Eve, offends those who do not believe in celebrations that involve drinking and revelry, sends a message of exclusion to all those whose idea of a wild night is putting a scoop of real coffee in with the decaf, and also implies recognition of the Gregorian Calendar (See January 1). Let's ban it.
So we see that every holiday listed on the 2006 calendar can be offensive to someone. In fact, the very word "holiday" comes from "holy day" and is therefore an establishment of religion.
To avoid giving offense, therefore, we must ban all holiday observances. But since the Constitution doesn't say this, we need to amend the Constitution. But maybe not. The courts seem to think they can amend the Constitution just by re-interpreting it.
Admittedly, we will lose much of the richness of our cultural heritage, and life will be much more banal and unexciting. But at least we won't offend anyone. Except those of us who like holidays.
Or maybe there's an alternative. Why don't we all just lighten up a little, and not look for things to be offended about? Last week I ran into a Jewish friend while shopping; we shook hands, talked about old times, and wished each other Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah. Whether it be Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, Christmas, Ramadan, or Winter Solstice, why don't we all celebrate our holidays and be enriched by each other? Now, doesn't that give tolerance and diversity a new twist?
By John Eidsmoe
Senior Staff Attorney, Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker
Professor of Law Emeritus, Thomas Goode Jones School of Law
Pastor, Association of Free Lutheran Congregations
Lt. Colonel, U.S. Air Force Reserve (Ret.)
Colonel, Alabama State Defense Force
2648 Pine Acres, Pike Road, AL 36064
(334) 270-1789 EidsmoeJA@juno.com

One Nation Under ?

2005-12-13T13:41:00.000-06:00

Rabbi Daniel Lapin, founder of Toward Tradition and author of America’s Real War, notes that “In Israel, the mail is not delivered on Yom Kippur. It is a Jewish nation. In Saudi Arabia, the mail is not delivered on Friday. It is an Islamic nation. In America, the mail is not delivered on Sundays or Christmas. It is a Christian nation."
Not surprisingly, a November 2005 FOX News poll discloses the following:

59 percent of Americans think Christianity is under attack here;

81 percent disagree with the statement that religion should be “excluded from public life”;

93 percent want “In God We Trust” to remain on our currency and coinage;

90 percent are for keeping “One Nation Under God” in the Pledge of Alliance;

76 percent say public display of the Ten Commandments should be legal;

82 percent favor voluntary school prayer; and

77 percent believe “the courts have gone too far in taking religion out of public life.”

Meanwhile, the civil war of cultural values continues to heat up with polygamists now seeking their “civil rights” - http://www.washtimes.com/specialreport/20051211-121113-7195r.htm. Are they entitled? Justice Anthony Kennedy and four concurring SCOTUS justices opined in the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey that “at the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life”. On the other hand, Noah Webster, in his massive work, the 1828 Dictionary of the American Language defined civil liberty as “the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty, so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation." Thomas Jefferson affirmed that view in his now famous-but-little-understood 1802 letter to Danbury Baptists [enshrining “separation of church and state”] when he wrote that man “… has no natural rights in opposition to his social duties."

Will we continue down this unmistakable “slippery slope”? Put more personally, if the outcome of restoring our constitutional republic depended on you, would we transmit it intact to our children and grandchildren? Well, it really does depend on you – and me! Theodore Roosevelt issued a poignant challenge when he said, "No man is worth his salt who is not ready at all times to risk his well-being, to risk his body, to risk his life, in a great cause." -Theodore Roosevelt

CRA 2005 Update

2005-12-07T11:19:00.000-06:00

A classic justification for passage of the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 (S. 520 in the Senate and H.R. 1070 in the House) is shown in a recent federal district judge’s ruling that the Indiana Legislature’s mention of the name of Jesus during prayer is unconstitutional.  See http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0038817.cfm.  While the Speaker of the Indiana House characterized this unelected federal judge’s decision as “intolerable”, it remains to be seen what specific action will follow.
It’s been said that when everything is said and done, more is usually said than done.  Enactment of the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 would totally remove jurisdiction from the federal courts over the acknowledgement of God as sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.  And if a federal judge ignores this statute, that fact would be evidence of a breach of the “good behaviour” condition for the judge’s holding office.  That development would give America a much-needed lesson in constitutional law, specifically Article III, Section 1.
The threats to America’s national security today are such that it behooves us to heed the warning of that “Defender of the Constitution” Daniel Webster:

"If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and continue to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instructions and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity." (Daniel Webster, statesmen and orator, God Bless America, Prayer and Reflections for Our Country)
For a more current affirmation of this imperative, Billy Graham, upon receiving the Congressional Gold Medal in 1996, stated: "As we face a new millennium, I believe America has gone a long way down the wrong road. We must turn around...  If ever we needed God's help, it is now."
You can help by urging your congressman/woman and U.S. Senators to become co-sponsor of the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005.  Here is a link:  http://www.lafamilyforum.org/explore.cfm/newsandalerts?Screen=alert&IssueId=5326&SessionID=$SITEID=-1:AID=176:APP=GAC$
Don’t put it off; do it now even as Louisiana’s recently approved Senate Concurrent Resolution 30 has urged Congress to act.

Hooray for The Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act!

2005-12-05T19:02:00.000-06:00

If you’re looking for a rifle shot (as distinguished from a shotgun blast) to aim at today’s cultural malaise, consider supporting passage of Congressman Walter Jones’ Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act (HR 235) that appears to be picking up support in the House of Representatives.  The measure – with 165 co-sponsors to date – would lift IRS restrictions banning political speech from the pulpit.
Have religious leaders ever been allowed to speak out politically?  Yes!  Prior to 1954, pastors and religious leaders spoke freely about candidates and political issues when they felt the need. The slavery abolitionist organizations and the civil rights movement are great examples of church inspired political successes.  But in 1954, then Senator Lyndon Johnson added language to pending tax legislation to prevent two non-profit groups that opposed him in 1948 from speaking out against him in his 1954 re-election.  Since then, that tax language has been used to silence political speech in America's houses of worship.
The Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act legislation would restore to America’s clergy the freedom to discuss politics with their congregations without putting their church's tax exempt status in jeopardy.  Under the new formulation, clergy would be free to speak out on political issues during worship services - but prohibited from any direct participation in campaign activities.
Up till now, however, support from Democrats has been slim to none.  But that may change with the IRS investigation - announced just last month - into the All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, Calif., one of the largest liberal congregations in the nation.  The IRS claims that two days before the 2004 presidential election, All Saints Rev. George Regas Regas ran afoul of tax law when he used his pulpit to deliver a blistering attack on President Bush and the Iraq war.  While insisting he wasn't instructing anyone on how to vote, according to Gannett News - Regas implored his flock: "Jesus places on your heart this question. When you go to the polls this November, will you vote all your values?"  Reacting to the IRS investigation into All Saints, Robert Edger, general secretary of the left wing National Council of Churches, complained that the church is being targeted by "a political witch hunt."
And while traditional left-wing advocacy groups like People for the American Way and Americans United for Separation of Church and State remain opposed to Rep. Jones' measure, the All Saints case is making for some strange political bedfellows.  The Los Angeles Times reports that when Ted Haggard, head of the 30-million-member National Association of Evangelicals, heard about the All Saints case, he reached out to the National Council - telling them that while probably would not agree with much in Rev. Regas' election eve sermon, he wants to work together to do "whatever it takes to get the IRS to stop" such actions.
With so many issues before legislative bodies involving moral questions of the day, those who ask for help from a higher power should not be excluded from the political process. Stay tuned – and weigh in by letting your lawmakers know what you think!

Immorality Does Not Stand Still

2005-12-05T04:17:00.000-06:00

Several years ago, a Louisiana legislator sympathetic to a proposed law extending employment non-discrimination protection on the basis of an undefined term, “sexual orientation” got upset when I pointed out in committee that immorality does not stand still. Thankfully that legislation was defeated and has not been enacted in Louisiana. Common sense – a commodity in increasingly short supply – should warn any thinking person that a relaxation of sexual morality would end with legalizing and normalizing a host of sexual perversions, including polygamy, incest and bestiality.
So we should not be surprised to read reports that legislators in Massachusetts are following up on their success at legalizing homosexual unions by pushing for softening laws against other forms of sexual deviance. They have introduced legislation called “An Act Relative to Archaic Crimes” proposing to reduce the penalties associated with the state’s criminal prohibition on sex acts with animals. The bill would also amend the penal code to de-criminalize adultery, fornication and the advertisement of abortion Not surprisingly, the proponent lawmakers are all endorsed by all three of Massachusetts’ gay lobby groups. Read about it at http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05111703.html

The ACLU's Worst Nightmare

2005-11-22T20:36:00.000-06:00

It is appropriate that the Louisiana Legislature passed a resolution urging Congress to enact the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s520is.txt.pdf] at the same time that a national survey was released indicating that Americans view religion as being under attack in America. According to the poll American Attitudes Toward Religion In the Public Square, sponsored by the Anti-Defamation League, 64% of those surveyed agreed with the statement that “religion is under attack” in America. Only 32% disagreed with that statement. Among those who consider themselves fundamentalist / evangelical / charismatic Christians, the result rose to 80%.
The unanimous Senate Concurrent Resolution 30 [http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=327668] by Mike Smith (Democrat, Winnfield), first of its kind in the nation, finds that “… the federal judiciary has overstepped its constitutional boundaries and ruled against the acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, and government by local and state officers and other state institutions, including state schools….” SCR 30 concludes by urging Congress “to adopt S520 and HR1070, the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 and in doing so protecting the ability of the people of Louisiana to display the Ten Commandments in public places, to express their faith in public, to retain God in the Pledge of Allegiance, to retain ‘In God We Trust’ as our national motto, and to use Article III, Section 2.2 of the United States Constitution to except these areas from the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court.”
One practical effect of passing the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 would be to remove from the jurisdiction of federal judges such as the one in New Orleans who is a former ACLU State President and recently ruled in favor of the ACLU regarding its challenge to Tangipahoa Parish School Board's policy of opening their meetings in prayer. Can you imagine any deliberative body in America more in need of prayer than a public school board?
Some of Louisiana’s congressional delegation (Rodney Alexander, Bobby Jindal, David Vitter) but not all, are co-authors of the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005. Now would be an exceptionally good time to urge the remainder to stand for traditional values where it will make a difference. This legislation truly is the ACLU’s worst nightmare.

It's [Still] the Sin, Stupid!

2005-11-10T08:20:00.000-06:00

It is now reported that Louisiana's rate of syphilis cases ranked No. 1 in the nation last year, while its gonorrhea rate placed second and its Chlamydia rate was third, according to federal figures released on November 8th.  Louisiana's syphilis rate is 7.4 cases per 100,000 people, compared with 2.7 cases per 100,000 nationally. The state's gonorrhea rate is 234.4 cases per 100,000, while the national figure is 113.5 per 100,000. The Chlamydia rate is 485.7 per 100,000, compared with 319.6 per 100,000 nationally.
The Louisiana Director of the Office of Public Health claims that “The numbers have been high because we haven't been able to do the things we need to do to intervene."  An epidemiologist at Tulane University's School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine affirmed that "It's an economic phenomenon; it's a sociological phenomenon" that would change once “we start getting people to have protected sex….”
To those with spiritual eyes to see, the problem is not lack of money for testing or condom distribution or training in “protected sex.”  No, the hard but inescapable fact is – to borrow James Carville’s attention-grabbing cliché - “it’s the sin, stupid!”

The most famous psychiatrist of the twentieth century, Dr. Karl Menninger, founder of the Menninger Foundation in Topeka, KS, shocked many with his 1973 book entitled, Whatever Became of Sin?  The cover jacket contains these words: "If as [Menninger] believes, mental health and moral health are identical, the recognition of the reality of sin offers to the suffering, struggling, anxious world a real hope not of belated treatment but of prevention."

Mark Twain put it a little differently: "You can straighten a worm, but the crook is in him and only waiting."  America desperately needs to dust off some hard truths:

"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question." - Thomas Jefferson

"Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint." -Alexander Hamilton (thirty years old!) in Federalist #15

"[B]ut what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature. If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." James Madison- Federalist Papers #51

Speaking of learning from history, Will Durant, writer of perhaps the most comprehensive history of the world, in his wrap-up volume, The Lessons of History, quoted Joseph de Maistre "I do not know what the heart of a rascal may be; I know what is in the heart of an honest man; it is horrible." (page 51).

Parenthood Now Unconstitutional?

2005-11-03T15:55:00.000-06:00

We may be reaching the "tipping point" with yesterday's breathtaking sex-ed decision by the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Some have been claiming that it declared parenthood unconstitutional - (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200511/CUL20051103b.html). Regardless of how you characterize the decision, it offers an extraordinarily good reason why the salutary language now found in Louisiana Children's Code Preamble (Article 101) should be moved into the Louisiana Constitution:

"Art. 101. Preamble - The people of Louisiana recognize the family as the most fundamental unit of human society; that preserving families is essential to a free society; that the relationship between parent and child is preeminent in establishing and maintaining the well-being of the child; that parents have the responsibility for providing the basic necessities of life as well as love and affection to their children; that parents have the paramount right to raise their children in accordance with their own values and traditions; that parents should make the decisions regarding where and with whom the child shall reside, the educational, moral, ethical, and religious training of the child, the medical, psychiatric, surgical, and preventive health care of the child, and the discipline of the child; that children owe to their parents respect, obedience, and affection; that the role of the state in the family is limited and should only be asserted when there is a serious threat to the family, the parents, or the child; and that extraordinary procedures established by law are meant to be used only when required by necessity and then with due respect for the rights of the parents, the children, and the institution of the family." Acts 1991, No. 235, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 1992. (emphasis added) See http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=72534

It is noteworthy that the Communist Manifesto lists 10 points which Marx considered critical to the success of communism. The last of these is "Public and gratis education of all children." We need a history lesson to be reminded that communists are atheists and the goals of the Communist Party are well documented, i.e.,:

Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and television;

Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural and healthy."

Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion.

Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."

Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

On Jan. 10, 1963, Congressman Albert S. Herlong Jr., D-Fla., read a list of 45 communist goals into the Congressional Record. Consider these goals alongside some federal court decisions in recent years that align with goals currently being implemented by the ACLU in their quest to destroy America's culture and traditions:

Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions, by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all form of artistic expression. An American communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings," substituting shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.

Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and television.

Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural and healthy."

Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."

Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of "the big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the communists took over. Obliterating the American past, with its antecedents in principles of freedom, liberty and private ownership is a major goal of the communists then and now.

Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture – education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

BTW, if you've not yet encouraged your congressmen/women to co-author the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005, I heartily recommend you do so at this time: http://www.lafamilyforum.org/explore.cfm/newsandalerts?Screen=alert&IssueId=5326&SessionID=$SITEID=-1:AID=176:APP=GAC$

What This Country Needs Is ...

2005-10-29T12:29:00.000-05:00

“What This Country Needs is…”

Will Rogers opined that “What the country needs is dirtier fingernails and cleaner minds.” I would say that what our country desperately needs at this moment is a clear acknowledgement that our national motto has not degenerated into a national anachronism. Is it still “In God We Trust” or is that merely past tense - “Trusted” today?

And what shall we say of the future for our children and grandchildren not to mention the future generations of Americans yet unborn? For starters, how about contacting your congressman and senator and insist that they sign on as co-authors of the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005? Here is an explanation.

What does the Constitution Restoration Act do?

The legislation (S520 (Shelby) and H.R. 1070 (Aderholt) uses the constitutional power of Congress to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts to protect the right of government agencies and officials and the rest of us citizens to acknowledge God.

It provides that any judge who allows such a case to be heard in his/her court will have committed a breach of the constitutional standard of "good behavior" and will therefore be subject to impeachment or removal.

It also bars judges from relying on foreign legal codes in deciding cases.

Why is the Act so important?

In recent years, nuisance lawsuits have been seeking to eradicate public acknowledgements of God. These suits are both a symptom of aggressively intolerant secularism and a contributing cause in creating cultural divisiveness along religious lines.

This divisiveness becomes sharper as judges side with the secularists instead of the Constitution. Few court decisions in history have evoked the angry public responses generated by the Ninth Circuit Newdow decision declaring the Pledge of Allegiance to be unconstitutional and the Alabama decision claiming that the Constitution requires the Ten Commandments to be kept in a closet. This is not jurisprudence aligning with our Constitution; it is ideology wrapped in black robes. Removing jurisdiction from judges who engage in such folly is no more improper than taking the car keys away from a drunk.

By keeping these nuisance suits out of the federal court system, the Constitution Restoration Act protects the nation against the only genuine threat that currently exists of an establishment of religion - the establishment of secular atheism by unelected judges abusing their power.

Jurisprudence regarding the Non-Establishment Clause since 1947, when the Supreme Court first attempted to apply it to the states, is littered with historical errors, inconsistencies, bizarre logical leaps and, occasionally, plain incoherence.

What types of cases would be withdrawn from federal jurisdiction under this legislation?

The Act prohibits the federal courts from hearing any case that seeks relief against an entity, officer or agent of government by reason of an acknowledgement of God as a sovereign source of law, liberty or government.

All of the following have been the subject of nuisance litigation in recent years.

saying the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance

using the words "God bless you" in presenting a flag to the family of a deceased soldier

adopting a verse of Scripture or mentioning God in an official motto, e.g. "In God we trust"

displaying the Ten Commandments in a public building

mentioning God in a constitution (as the constitutions of 49 states do - 47 of them in the opening words of the preamble - and as the Declaration of Independence does with references to the "Creator" and the U.S. Constitution with a reference to the "Year of Our Lord")

retaining the names and the symbols associated with cities, counties, and geographic features that originally had a religious significance (Los Angeles, Providence, Corpus Christi, Saint Louis)

The Act does not cover issues of prayers or religious exercises, sectarian preferences, or anything involving the expenditure of public funds.

Does this legislation violate the "Non-Establishment" clause of the Constitution?

No, because it does not allow for the "establishment" of religion. The essence of religious "establishment" is state endorsement of a particular religion to the exclusion of all others. The acknowledgement of God is, if anything, an endorsement of religion in general, to the exclusion of none. Our nation’s charter, the Declaration of Independence, acknowledges God in four (4) different places and the Constitution itself ends by referring to the “year of our Lord….”

Does Congress have the right to remove certain cases from federal jurisdiction?

Yes. Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution establishes:"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Since the Supreme Court is the only court that has constitutional statues, and all other federal courts are the creatures of Congress, then Congress has plenary power over the jurisdiction of those inferior courts.

As for the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, Article III, Section 2 lists a small range of cases in which the Supreme Court exercises original jurisdiction."In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."Therefore, except for the cases in which the Constitution specifically grants original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, Congress has complete authority to decide what cases the Supreme Court may hear.

Therefore, this bill will stop federal courts from abusing their power by censoring citizens from recognizing Almighty God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.

The first section would provide that the Supreme Court and federal district courts would "not have jurisdiction to review" a lawsuit brought against a federal, state, or local government body or officer because of an "acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government" by the government body or officer.

The second section would forbid federal courts from relying upon foreign law or foreign organizations (except for English constitutional and common law before the Constitution was ratified) when the courts are "interpreting and applying the Constitution of the United States."

The third section provides that (a) any federal decisions relating to an issue removed by the first section of the CRA (acknowledgments of God) are not binding precedent on the state courts; and (b) that any federal justice or judge's act that exceeds his or her jurisdiction under section I of the CRA constitutes an impeachable offense and a breach of the standard of good behavior under Article III, Section I of the Constitution.

Because the CRA contains a limit on the jurisdiction of the federal courts, not a definition of the substantive meaning of the Establishment Clause, a federal court has no power to make any substantive constitutional ruling in a case where the action challenged is, on its face, an acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty and government.

According to Section 302 of the CRA, such a court has committed an impeachable offense and has breached the constitutional standard of good behavior. While the CRA does not require the House of Representatives impeach any offending federal judge for exceeding his jurisdiction, nor does it require that the Senate convict, it leaves such action to the discretion of the House and the Senate in each individual case.

Congress has no power to limit the jurisdiction of the state courts, and that is how it should be under our constitutional federal system. But under Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution, Congress does have the power ensure that state courts do not defer to the federal courts, but only to the Constitution, as the supreme law of the land as provided for in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. Thus, under Section 301 of the CRA, the state courts would no longer be burdened by federal decisions that have held public acknowledgments of God to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution (decisions that could no longer be rendered when the CRA is enacted).

Section 201 denies to the federal courts the power to rely upon official actions of any foreign government or organization (such as Canada or the United Nations), with one exception: judges may consider "English constitutional and common law up to the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States," from which our American common law and many of our constitutional provisions were derived. Thus, under the CRA, the ancient legal scholars and principles relied upon by the Founders in drafting the Constitution may still be considered by federal judges in interpreting the Constitution.

Check and see if you lawmaker has signed on as a co-author of the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005. Contact him/her to make respectful appeal:

House co-authors of H.R. 1070:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR01070:@@@P

Senate co-authors:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00520:@@@P

Further information about the Constitution Restoration Act may be found at:
http://www.cwfa.org/printerfriendly.asp?id=5939&department=cwa&categoryid=misc
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c109:./temp/~c109DLAf9G
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.520:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s520is.txt.pdf

Filibuster Judicial Nominations?

2005-04-11T16:24:00.000-05:00

Although some in the media keep talking about the "nuclear option," there's really nothing that explosive about the plans of Senate leadership to end the filibusters against President Bush's judicial nominees.

The Constitution gives the Senate the power to offer "advice and consent" on nominations to the bench — but some senators – including Mary Landrieu – have interpreted that to mean that they have the power to "obstruct and prevent" qualified jurists from serving. The GOP plan would correct that abuse by reaffirming 51 votes as the number needed to confirm a nominee.

This proposal plan involves nothing unethical; after all, there are already at least 26 laws on the books limiting the use of filibusters to block everything from budget resolutions to international trade agreements. And Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, has said — back in 1995 — "The president is entitled to his nominee, if a majority of the Senate consent."

The bottom line: Restoring Senate tradition to end the minority's obstructionism must happen sooner rather than later. That's the message our senators need to hear from us.

Sounds like racism to me!

2004-12-06T17:41:00.000-06:00

What a terrible position to take concerning America's outstanding black Supreme Court Justice!

CNN.com - Dems'�new Senate leader criticizes Justice Thomas - Dec 5, 2004

A Positive Sign!

2004-12-02T14:37:00.000-06:00

Article from the San Francisco Chronicle:

Anti-evolution teachings gain foothold in U.S. schools
Evangelicals see flaws in Darwinism
- Anna Badkhen, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 30, 2004

Dover, Pa. -- The way they used to teach the origin of the species to high school students in this sleepy town of 1,800 people in southern Pennsylvania, said local school board member Angie Yingling disapprovingly, was that "we come from chimpanzees and apes."

Not anymore.

The school board has ordered that biology teachers at Dover Area High School make students "aware of gaps/problems" in the theory of evolution. Their ninth-grade curriculum now must include the theory of "intelligent design," which posits that life is so complex and elaborate that some greater wisdom has to be behind it.

The decision, passed last month by a 6-to-3 vote, makes the 3,600-student school district about 20 miles south of Harrisburg the first in the United States to mandate the teaching of "intelligent design" in public schools, putting it on the front line of the growing national debate over the role of religion in public life.

The new curriculum, which prompted two school board members to resign, is expected to take effect in January. The school principal, Joel Riedel, and teachers contacted by The Chronicle refused to comment on the changes.

The idea of intelligent design was initiated by a small group of scientists to explain what they believe to be gaps in Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which they say is "not adequate to explain all natural phenomena. "

On an intelligent-design Web site (www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org), the theory is described as "a scientific disagreement with the claim of evolutionary theory that natural phenomena are not designed.''

Critics such as Eugenie Scott, director of the Oakland-based National Center for Science Education, say the Dover school board's decision is part of a growing trend. Religious conservatives, critics say, have been waging a war against Darwin in classrooms since the Scopes "Monkey Trial" of 1925. Tennessee schoolteacher John Scopes was convicted of illegally teaching evolution, but his conviction later was thrown out on a technicality by the Tennessee Supreme Court.

"There's a constant impetus by conservative evangelical Christians to bring religion back into the public schools," said Witold Walczak, legal director of the Pennsylvania branch of the American Civil Liberties Union. "The end goal is to get rid of evolution. They view it as a threat to their religion."

The intelligent-design theory makes no reference to the Bible, and its proponents do not say who or what the greater force is behind the design. But Yingling, 46, who graduated from Dover High School in 1976, and other supporters of the new curriculum in this religiously conservative slice of rural Pennsylvania say they know exactly who the intelligent designer is.

"There's only one creator, and it has to be God," said Rebecca Cashman, 16, a sophomore at Dover High. She frowned when asked to recollect what she learned about evolution at school last year.

"Evolution -- is that the Darwin theory?" Cashman shook her head. "I don't know just what he was thinking!"

Patricia Nason at the Institute for Creation Research, the world leader in creation science, said her organization and other activist groups are encouraging people who share conservative religious beliefs to seek positions on local school boards.

"The movement is to get the truth out," Nason said by telephone from El Cajon (San Diego County). "We Christians have as much right to be involved in politics as evolutionists. We've been asleep for two generations, and it's time for us to come back."

Emboldened by their contribution to President Bush's re-election, conservative religious activists are using intelligent design as a new strategy of attacking evolution without mentioning God, Scott said.

"There is a new energy as a result of the last election, and I anticipate an even busier couple of years coming on," Scott said.

She called intelligent design "creationism lite" masquerading as science. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1987 banned the teaching of creationism -- which holds that God created the world about 6,000 years ago -- in public schools on the grounds of separation of church and state.

John West of the Discovery Institute in Seattle, the main sponsor and promoter of intelligent design, defended the theory he says addresses "evolution follies."

"Mainstream criticism should be raised in classrooms," West said.

The Dover school district's challenge to the primacy of evolution is not isolated. In Cobb County, Ga., parents sued a local school board for mandating that biology textbooks prominently display disclaimers stating that evolution is "not a fact." A federal court is expected to rule next month.

In Grantsburg, Wis., a school board revised its science curriculum to teach "various scientific models of theories of origin." In Charles County, Md. , the school board is considering a proposal to eliminate textbooks "biased toward evolution" from classrooms. Similar proposals have been considered this year in Missouri, Mississippi and Oklahoma.

"There is nothing random about this," said Barry Lynn, executive director of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "You might say it's a planned evolution of an attack on the science of evolution."

The drive to bring more religion and what have been labeled "moral values" into the classroom goes beyond challenges to Darwin's theory, Scott said. The Charles County school board also proposed to censor school reading lists of "immorality" or "foul language" and to allow the distribution of Bibles in schools. In Texas, the nation's second-biggest school textbook market, the State Board of Education approved health textbooks that defined abstinence as the only form of contraception and changed the description of marriage between "two people" to "a lifelong union between a husband and a wife."

"The religious right has a list of topics that it wants action on," Scott said. "Things like abortion, abstinence, gays are higher up in the food chain of their concern, but evolution is part of the package."

This drive has found fertile ground in this part of Pennsylvania, where billboards reading, "Many books inform but only the Bible transforms" line the road, and family restaurants offer free booklets titled "What the Bible says about moral purity" and "The Bible is God's word" at the door.

"These brochures give you an idea where some people in this community are coming from," said Jeff Brown, 54, who, along with his wife Carol, 57, resigned from the school board after they voted against changing the biology curriculum.

Yingling, who voted in favor, said she believes God created the world in six days and doesn't believe in evolution "at all." Another board member who supported the measure, William Buckingham, refused to say what he believes but has identified himself as a born-again Christian.

But religious beliefs or motivations should be beside the point, said Richard Thompson, an attorney who represents the board members. Thompson is the president of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., a pro-bono firm whose Web site promises "the sword and shield for the people of faith."

The decision was "supportive of academic freedom more than anything else, " Thompson said.

While not talking about his own religious convictions, Thompson added, "When you look at cell structure and you see the intricacy of the cell, you can come to the conclusion that it doesn't happen by natural selection, there has to be intelligent design." Thompson said he is ready to represent the board in the Supreme Court if it comes to that. Some parents and teachers in Dover already have asked the Pennsylvania ACLU to sue the board on their behalf. Walczak said the organization's legal team is studying the case before deciding whether to go to court.

Brown, the former school board member, says he is not arguing with other people's religious beliefs.

"Don't get me wrong: I don't have a problem with having these booklets where people can pick them up. But I do have a problem with people shoving this down the throats of our children on taxpayers' dollars," Brown said.

"I happen to believe both in God and evolution," he said, and his wife nodded: "Hear, hear."

The Browns appear to be in the minority. Although public schools have been teaching evolution for decades, a national Gallup poll in November 2004 showed that only 35 percent of those asked believed confidently that Darwin's theory was "supported by the evidence.'' More than one-third of those polled by CBS News later in November said creationism should be taught instead of evolution.

"A guy came up to me and said, 'Wait a minute, you believe in God and evolution at the same time? Evolution isn't in the Bible!' " said Brown, nibbling on a deep-fried mozzarella stick at the Shiloh Family Restaurant on Route 74. As he became more agitated, his voice grew louder, and other customers -- mostly gray-haired women and elderly men in baseball hats -- turned their heads to look at the couple. Carol Brown kept putting her index finger to her lips, gesturing for her husband to be quieter.

After the Browns left the restaurant, a waitress in her 30s slipped a note to a Chronicle reporter.

"Beware," it read. "God wrote over 2,000 years ago that there would be false prophets and teachers. If you would like to know the truth read the Bible."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent actions in the teaching of evolution
Tennessee, April 2003: Blount County's Board of Education votes not to adopt three high school biology textbooks because they do not present creationism alongside evolution.

California, September 2003: The Board of Trustees of the Roseville Joint Union High School District (Placer County) decide not to enact a district- wide policy on teaching evolution. Science teachers have told the district that they do not want to add anti-evolutionist materials that are not state- approved.

Oklahoma, April 2004: Textbook legislation passes after it is stripped of a provision that all textbooks include a disclaimer describing evolution as "a controversial theory which some scientists present as scientific explanation for the origin of living things" and "the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced a world of living things."

Pennsylvania, October 2004: A Dover, Pa., school board votes to include intelligent design in the district's science curriculum, making it the first such school district in the country.

Georgia, November 2004: A lawsuit is filed against the Cobb County School District over this disclaimer inserted into textbooks: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

Source: National Center for Science Education; Chronicle research

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National polls on the issue
In your opinion, is Darwin's theory supported by evidence?

Supported by evidence, 35%

Not supported, 35%

Don't know enough to say, 29%

Which best describes your views of the origin of life?

Man developed with God guiding, 38%

Man developed with no help from God, 13%

God created man in present form, 45%

Source: Gallup Poll, conducted Nov. 7-10. The poll surveyed 1,016 adults; the margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Percentage favoring the teaching of creationism

instead of evolution

Overall, 37%

Kerry voters, 24%

Bush voters, 45%

Self-described evangelical Christians, 60%

Source: CBS News poll, conducted Nov. 18-21. The poll surveyed 795 registered voters nationwide; the margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent actions in the teaching of evolution
Tennessee, April 2003: Blount Countyï¿½s Board of Education votes not to adopt three high school biology textbooks because they do not present creationism alongside evolution..

California, September 2003: The Board of Trustees of the Roseville Joint Union High School District Placerville County) decide not to enact a district- wide policy on teaching evolution. Science teachers have told the district that they do not want to add nti-evolutionist materials that are not stateapproved..

Oklahoma, April 2004: Textbook legislation passes after it is stripped of a provision that all textbooks include a disclaimer describing evolution as "a controversial theory which some scientists present as scientific explanation for the origin of living things"and "the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced a world of living things.".

Pennsylvania, October 2004: A Dover, Pa., school board votes to include intelligent design in the districtï¿½s science curriculum, making it the first such school districtin the country..

Georgia, November 2004: A lawsuit is filed against the Cobb County School District over this disclaimer inserted into textbooks: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and criticallyconsidered.".Source: National Center for Science Education; Chronicle research

E-mail Anna Badkhen at abadkhen@sfchronicle.com.

Page A - 1
URL

The Real Ideological Root of Terrorism: Darwinism

2004-11-29T13:31:00.000-06:00

LINK

Roy's Rock Coming to Louisiana?

2004-08-03T17:07:00.000-05:00

Out of the Courthouse and Into the Public Arena

Truth-Telling v. Loyalty Essay

2004-07-03T09:53:00.000-05:00

"Honoring the Truth-Teller"
-by Dr. Roger W. Sapp.

Prior to 1993, I was an active duty Army Chaplain. During that season in my life, I taught leadership skills to officers and non commissioned officers in leadership retreats as a part of my ministry. I often used management games to teach these leaders about leadership. In one management game called "Powerplay", a scenario is created where these leaders were arbitrarily divided into groups by virtue of winning in a trading scenario. The winning group is then given authority over the other groups. The winning group is given the right to make the rules for future trading and to dictate these rules to the other groups. Without exception, the group that has the authority always begins to make rules to keep its authority and to benefit it as a group in trading. Given enough time the winning group will begin to clearly abuse the other groups. This group will justify its behavior on the basis of winning the

earlier portion of the game and by virtue of having the authority.

Reactions of Different Abused Groups - In those retreats where non-commissioned officers (sergeants) were involved, the sergeants would allow themselves to be abused. Their overriding value was loyalty to the authority no matter what transpired or how unfairly they were treated. They were unhappy and grumbled among themselves during the abuse but did not do anything productive to deal with it. They offered no feedback, no confrontation, and no truth from their perspective to the abusive group of sergeants. This was characteristic of nearly all the sergeants that I played this game with. This revealed that their values were highly loyal but truthfulness was weak as a value. (Of course, there were a few exceptional sergeants that would have been better officers by nature.) The reactions of the officers in the officer leadership retreats were entirely different. As the group of officers who abused them became more abusive, the officers became increasingly active and alert to their responsibility to deal with the unfair situation. They offered feedback that was largely ignored. They devised strikes; in other words, they withdrew and would not cooperate with the abusive authority. They often tried to continue to confront the abusive group. They tried to negotiate a more just situation. In nearly all cases, the group in authority would become increasingly authoritarian and created more rules strictly for their own benefit and to keep the rebels in line. The abusive group would often say that the other officer groups were not playing fair when they rebelled, withdrew or failed to cooperate. In other words, the group with the authority became blind to their abuse and blamed the abused groups for withdrawing and not wanting to play the game anymore.

Not Valuing Truth Results in Blindness - Blindness is characteristic of organizations and leaders that do not value truthfulness in their relationships. This is because truth telling has been stifled in a loyalty-based organizations or individuals. Because there is no honest feedback, they will often be blind to their abusive behavior and honestly wonder why others are reacting. There will be no-one to tell them that it is wrong to shift the blame for difficulties in the relationships to the victims of their abusive behavior. The value of truth is what keeps a local church or any organization from becoming like a cult. Honoring the truth-teller is a characteristic of godly relationships. Dishonoring the truth-teller is a characteristic of cults. Cultic behavior, which always includes blindness, will result from an overemphasis of loyalty above the truth. Leaders must understand that their own desire for loyalty may overcome truthfulness in their subordinates. They must actively cultivate truthfulness along with loyalty. This game also revealed that different kinds of people have different values and expectations. Commissioned Officers are taught in the military that proper submission means that they will speak to the superior officer with courage and candor (truthfulness) about organizational problems. Officers who will not confront their commander when necessary are poor excuses for leaders. Commanders who will not hear the honest, truthful input of their subordinates without penalty are poor commanders. The officer type of leader expects to be treated well by other leaders. He expects his input to be valued and genuinely considered. The officer type of leader will want to fix the organization's larger problems and will not ordinarily be silent about them. If the organizational values lean too far to loyalty and not enough on truthfulness, this type of leader will often be seen as not being a team player and be penalized by being privately labeled as such. As a result the organization may lose this valuable leader. The sergeant type of leader will remain loyal to a fault. He will adjust to the problems and not necessarily ever speak truthfully to the organization. There is nothing wrong with this type of person; in fact, they are greatly needed in all organizations. However, in unhealthy organizations, the sergeant type of leader is valued above the officer type of leader. The officer type of person can help an organization to deal with its problems and therefore grow. If an organization creates an atmosphere for genuine honesty and truthfulness, it will attract many of the officer types of persons and will be able to keep them. It will not lose its sergeant types either. In fact, the sergeant type of leader will be much happier since problems will be dealt with.

When Loyalty Overcomes Truthfulness - Loyalty and truthfulness are two covenant values that must be held in tension against one another. Loyalty binds us together. The truth sets us free. If one value is emphasized over the other, then serious problems develop and both values will become distorted. If loyalty is overemphasized, then only affirmation will be given and heard as feedback. If truth telling is practiced without love and without loyalty, it does not build but tears down. If truthfulness is considered a fundamental component of loyalty, then the organization will be built on integrity. If loyalty is considered a fundamental component of truthfulness, then the organization will have true unity. Often in an organization, whether it is the local church, a business, a denomination, or a fellowship of churches, loyalty becomes the overriding value and begins to overcome truthfulness. This is often revealed in private words, actions and attitudes rather than the official position of the organization. The leaders of an organization may say that they value truthfulness but reveal in their actions that this is not really so. There are several predictable results when this happens:

Truth-Tellers are Unappreciated - Individuals who strongly value honesty and truthfulness are unappreciated, and often rejected as disloyal. Some people are particularly oriented to truthfulness and may be seen as not being team players by those who highly value loyalty. This may create a value conflict in the organization between the truth-tellers and those who highly prize loyalty. The loyalty value normally wins over truthfulness in these kinds of situations because those in authority will often value loyalty over truthfulness. When the loyalty value wins over truth, it often takes the form of a suppression of free expression, particularly dissent. This does not make the elements of truth in dissent go away; truth will surface again and again in different, even more destructive forms, until it is dealt with properly. This is precisely why political tyrants are unable to completely silence free expression and why they feel the need to silence it. The truth will find a way to express itself simply because it is the truth and God stands behind it. Every time loyalty wins over truthfulness, loyal individuals are unintentionally trained by the leadership to hide the truth or to put an organizational spin on it. Truthful individuals are trained that they are not really welcome. Perceptions are created that success and promotion in the organization comes by telling the leadership what they want to hear rather than the truth. Loyal "yes men" can seem to become valued over those who have strong individual integrity and truthfulness.

Sincere Relationships in the Church - The concept of sincerity may be the best blend of the values of loyalty and truthfulness. A sincere person is a person who out of loyalty to God and others speaks the truth without mixture. The word sincere comes from the Latin word sincerus. It literally means without wax. This word comes from the time when the Romans were building great buildings using marble columns to support the weight of these monumental buildings. The builders would go to the marble cutters in the quarries and inspect the columns. The cutters would put wax in the cracks of columns to make them deceptively appear to be solid in order to sell them. The builders could only use the sincere columns to build with. The columns that were what they appeared to be, that were actually solid, without wax hiding cracks, were the only thing that would sustain the weight of the building. If a builder built a building using a column that lacked sincerity, the entire building could fall down. The parallels are evident. The Spirit of Truth needs sincere people to build the Church; people that value loyalty and truthfulness in harmony with each other.

The Mug Grandma Law (aka Federal Hate Crimes Bill)

2004-06-29T13:48:00.000-05:00

"Sexual Orientation" essentially means "erotic attraction". The American Psychiatric Association's current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders lists over twenty "sexual orientations" besides homosexuality, many of which would shock the sensibilities of most Americans. Pedophilia is one such "sexual orientation."

Also shocking is the development that the U.S. Senate just passed a "hate crimes" bill recognizing "sexual orientation" as a category deserving of special protection. Supporters of this type of legislation hope to suppress free speech that opposes homosexuality.

The real danger of "hate-crime" laws is that they end up criminalizing thoughts and beliefs, rather than just actions. Homosexual activists would redefine any disagreement with homosexuality as "hate speech." Laws in Canada and Sweden already state that it is a hate crime to criticize homosexual behavior. For example, a Swedish pastor was recently arrested at his church when he read verses from the Bible that call homosexuality a sin.

Former Los Angeles Times news editor Bob Knight aptly observes that such "hate crime" laws create a multi-tiered system of justice, in which some crime victims' cases are taken more seriously than others, thus violating the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. Knight observes, "Equal protection means your grandma and your friend who lives as a homosexual have the same rights when they walk down the street. Under a hate crimes law, someone who mugs your grandmother will not be prosecuted as vigorously as
someone who commits the same crime against a homosexual. This says to criminals: 'Mug Grandma; It's less risky.'

Hate crimes laws aren't about justice; they are about favoritism and special rights." And it can be expected that if such a federal law is passed, police and prosecutors are likely to define more and more cases as "hate crimes" in pursuit of federal dollars. After California enacted a "hate crimes" law, incidents went from 75 to 2,052 in four years.

Citizens who value freedom and the fundamental protections afforded by our legal system should see this latest drive for a federal "hate crimes" law for the Trojan horse that it is - an effort to criminalize thoughts and beliefs and lay the foundation for the persecution of Christians in this country whose opposition to homosexuality would be characterized as "hate speech."

We already have laws criminalizing speech that incites violence. Predictable under a "hate crimes" law would be the dominant media's portrayal of any incident involving a homosexual as the fault of people who have publicly opposed homosexual activism.

Any Senator who voted for this is setting up our children and grandchildren for persecution as activist courts rule that biblical morality is "bigotry."

Let's pray that more critical thinking prevails in the U.S. House.

Origins Toobox - All in One Place!

2004-06-28T20:43:00.000-05:00

http://judgewhite.com/origins.html

"Same Sex Marriage" Debate - My Opponent's After-Action Report

2004-06-25T17:46:00.000-05:00

Here's the take from my opponent when we debated "same-sex" pairings at Loyola University in New Orleans earlier this year.

click here (homosexual advocacy magazine)

Why ?

2004-06-25T17:07:00.000-05:00

It's been said that good questions outrank easy answers. [Paul A. Samuelson] Accordingly, consider the following:

•Why is it that the Ten Commandments are the basis of American law (e.g. false swearing) but are considered by some federal judges to be "unlawful" for display in America's courtrooms?

•If the decisive point concerning abortion is whether it involves the killing of a human being instead the moral equivalent of an appendectomy, why don't we ever see an abortion performed on TV so viewers can judge for themselves?

•If condoms are really effective - as some sex educators suggest - why is 1 of every 4 young Americans now infected with an incurable STD?

•Why do we continue to hear that America was not founded as a Christian nation when secular studies show that 94% of our founding source documents come either directly or indirectly from the Bible?

•If America's founders wanted prayer and the Bible out of public schools, why didn't they take steps to remove them?

•If "gay blood" is so dangerous that it is quarantined, why are those who give the blood in the first place so specially protected? [Paul Cameron's FRI]

•If homosexuality is really ok, why do studies show male homosexuals, on average, are dying in their early 40's (or earlier if AIDS intervenes?

•With the spread of AIDS, why isn't the historical reason for our sodomy laws (public health) ever mentioned?

•Why isn't the pedophilic nature (and homosexual bias) of Alfred Kinsey's research ever mentioned by the dominant media?

•If secular humanism is, as Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) says, a "religion," why are its major themes (no creator, no creation, and no moral absolutes), permitted in the public schools?

•Why is it that Darwin's "Origin of Species" and many so-called "secular" biology text books can get away with mentioning "God" and "Creator" so long as it is done in a disparaging, uncomplimentary way?

•Why don't public school texts teach Darwinism critically - at least by telling students the full title of his book ("The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life")?

•Why is it that federal courts that declare "unconstitutional" the public acknowledgement of God [e.g., Ohio's state motto ("With God All Things Are Possible" and "under God" in the Pledge) are permitted to open their sessions by forcing attendees stand ("All Rise!") for an acknowledgment of God ("God save the United States and guide this honorable court")?

•Why is it that when home-school students fail to demonstrate satisfactory progress, educational bureaucrats insist that they be re-enrolled in public schools, but if they fail to demonstrate satisfactory progress in public schools, they are not sent home to be educated?

•Why is it that the free speech clause of First Amendment should protect computer simulations of adults having sex with little children [virtual child pornography] and not protect American citizens expressing their political opinions in the course of electing their representatives [Campaign Finance Reform Act]?

•Why is Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore's Ten Commandments monument on trial and not the monument in front of the federal courthouse, which includes the scales of justice and face of the Greek goddess of justice, Themis?

•In light of the conclusions of renowned psychiatrist Karl Meninger's 1973 book, "Whatever Became of Sin", why is it so unfashionable to mention "sin" as a societal reality?

•Why is it that in public schools, the mention of God's Name modifying "damn" is protected by the First Amendment's free speech clause, but speaking well of God is prohibited by the First Amendment's establishment clause? In other words, why does the same Constitution protect speaking ill of God while simultaneously prohibit speaking well of Him?

•If nude scenes are essential to movie plots, why isn't their absence from old classics felt as a shortcoming? And if "realism" demands nudity, why do we only see beautiful young women in the raw? Why don't we see more fat old men naked? [Joseph Sobran]

•(CONSTITUTIONAL RIDDLE) - Why is it that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution forbids any "religious test" for holding public office yet Congress - creator and sustainer of all federal courts except the supreme Court [original punctuation] - insists that federal judges invoke God's name by uttering the words "so help me God" (whether by oath or affirmation) before undertaking their duties of office? If that requirement in 28 U.S. Code 453 is "unconstitutional" ab initio, then how do we know any "awakening of conscience" [the hallmark of an oath/affirmation] has taken place at all?

•Why doesn't the same first amendment (free speech clause) that requires religious persons to accommodate the atheist's unfavorable or blasphemous mention of God's name require the atheist to accommodate religious speech by those who want to be part of the pluralism and diversity about which liberals regularly speak, but which is not broad enough to embrace people who believe in God? [adapted from Cal Thomas]

•Why is it that every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777 yet we hear about "separation of church and state" prohibiting any acknowledgement of God in public affairs?

•How come those critical of America's constitutional republic do not emigrate to Cuba to live under the form of government that they consider ideal? [Norman Liebmann]

This helps put it in perspective...

2004-06-25T09:12:00.000-05:00

Appointed for Life? (funny mp3 song)

2004-06-21T12:59:00.000-05:00

Perhaps there should be a court that the Court must answer to....

Welcome!

2004-06-16T23:33:00.000-05:00

Welcome to my Weblog! This will be exciting!