The article, written by Roxana Hegeman of the Associate Press, does correctly summarize the facts of the days court proceedings, wherein Roeder was found guilty and could serve 25 years to life. This is fine. Hegemanalso says that fringe groups support Roeder and might want to commit more violence. While there was only one source to back up her statement this may also be true.

The problem is that the article seems to paint all pro-lifers as being extreme and wanting to see abortionists dead, and that pro-life activists want more protection to commit these crimes. This is patently untrue. Every major activist group and ministry affiliated with the right to life such as Operation Rescue, Focus on the Family, and Personhood USA condemned this act of violence, as it is the opposite of the right to life movement. The general consensus of the right to life movement is that while Dr. Tiller committed thousands of atrocities against humanity by daily killing the unborn, and that he deserved to be tried in a court of law, he himself had a right to life that Scott Roeder violated.

Perhaps the worst part of this article is when the author quotes Randall Terr,y as the founder of Operation Rescue, promising there will be more bloodshed. What she fails to tell you is that Randall Terry has not been affiliated with the organization for 17 years. In addition, as stated previously, Operation Rescue denounced this and all other violence against abortionists and staffers.

Hegeman and the Associated Press dropped the ball on this article. Either that, or they are purposefully trying to skew this issue, knowing that a majority of Americans say that abortion is morally wrong.

I have two requests of all who read this. First, I would encourage you to contact your own Attorney General and encourage them to launch a similar investigation and consider suing to block this legislation. Second, I would ask that all interested leave a comment here about what you think about this legislation, good or bad, and what you think we as citizens should do about it.

The US Senate is currently considering new hate crimes legislation that would add sexual orientation into existing laws on hate crime. While some people think it is good to add these “enhancements” to the law I submit to you that it is not, and will explain why.

Hate is not a Crime Hate is an emotion,not an action. We can’t punish hate anymore than we can punish love (which we cannot by the way). Only actions are punishable, along with the intent that preceded them. But without action, intent is meaningless. So if we cannot punish emotion, what are we attempting to punish? Thought and speech.

Speech in the US is protected Almost all speech in this country, with the exception of sedition, is protected under The Constitution. Ten years ago the Ku Klux Klan held a small rally here in Cleveland, Ohio where they made racist speeches. Many people here thought our mayor, who at the time was black, should not have given them a permit. But the mayor did the right thing, allowing them to march and rally. While the Klan may be dispicible, they have a right to exist, a right to speak, and those opposed to their views have a right to condem them, which they did. Hate crime legislation would make it illegal for a Pastor of a church to read or expound upon the chapters of Leviticus and Romans in the Bible that condemn homosexuality as a sin. This would not only violate our right to free speech but but also our freedom of religion as well.

Hate crime is not justice The US Constitution guarantees equality under the law. Equal protection as a defendant, equal punishment as the convicted. Hate crime elevates certain crimes to a special status, requiring enhanced punishments. This is not justice it is revenge. What is worse, under the new hate crime bill the defendant is only charged with a hate crime. If he proves that he did not commit the crime based on hate, hw would be found not guilty, receiving no punishment.

No life is more valuable than another. If the victim of a crime is of a different ethnic group then the perpetrator, do they suffer more? Of course not.The Mathew Shepard murder was a despicable crime, but it is no worse than any other murder. Does Mathew Shepard’s mother miss him more than any other mother who has lost a child? No one in their right mind can say yes to this. Therefore this legislation is illogical and unnecessary.

Hate crimes legislation is not needed The only way this legislation would make sense is if someone who committed a hate crime today would not be punished under existing law. But the fact is that people are punished . In the previously mentioned Mathew Shepard case the two men were both given life sentences, one without the possibility of parole. Another good example of a punished crime involving hate is that of James Byrd, Jr. a black man from Jasper, Texas who was dragged to death by three white men in 1998. In this case two of the three men received death sentences, the other life in prison. What would hate crime legislation do? Can we kill them twice? Can we make the third defendant live long enough to serve two life sentences? Of course not. If that is not possible, then it is not possible for this legislation to do anything productive and is therefore unnecessary.

Men, if we want our rights to free speech and free exercise of religion protected we must stand up for them.  Thomas Jefferson said: “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” I urge you to call the US Capitol switchboard at (202)224-3121 and ask your Senators to not support this bad legislation (S. 909), lest it become bad law. If you do not know who your Senators are, you can simply tell the operator where you live and they will connect you.

I would also ask that you pray for God to grant our elceted officials wisdom in these troubling times, for mercy for our sins, and for repentance and revival to come to our troubled nation.

Amen

Since the California Supreme Court, the highest court in the state upheld this amendment, gay activists have decided to file an injunction in Federal court. My question is: “what do they think this is going to accomplish? Why would a Federal court strike down a part of the Constitution of a sovereign state?” Okay, that was two questions. But hey, it’s my blog.

My best guess is they expect to get this case from the circuit court to the 9th Circus Court of Appeals, the most liberal court in America. This is unfortunately possible, as I don’t think they will win in the Circuit.

Here is another question: does anyone out there know if a federal court has ever struck down a state constitutional amendment? It seems to me that would be over stepping the federal court’s bounds just a bit. Of course, these courts have been doing that a lot lately.

Men, let’s keep the same prayers as the prvious post, adding that God would give the dederal jurists wisdomn in dealing with this case.

Amen.

With the election of President Obama, the most Pro-Death President in history, and such a liberal Congress, the threat to life has not been this great since the 1970′s. As Christians, we acknowledge that life is the most precious gift given by God, and that He commands us not to commit murder. But we are in a time where life has become cheap. From Obabma threatening to repeal Pro-Life laws across the country, to a growing threat from Euthanasia, we must do what we can to protect life.

In the midst of all this doom and gloom, we must keep in mind that the war is not over, and there are things that we can do to help protect those who cannot protect themselves. 2008 saw a new concept in pro-life policy known as Personhood. First attempted in Colorado during the 2008 election, Personhood seeks to pass laws at the state level which acknowledge the unborn to be persons, extending them the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness afforded by the US Constitution. This type of law circumvents Roe v. Wade by identifying a fetus as a person. Not only could this make abortion illegal in a state that passes this legislation, it could also ban embryonic stem-cell research in that state, as it would make it illegal to destroy the zygote once created.

For many years I thought that the fight for life was only relegated to preventing abortions through peaceful protest, offering alternatives to pregant women considering abortion, and teaching abstinence. While I was grateful to have these means, I was always sad that we could not fix this problem by changing the law. I was under the impression that the Roe decission was unsermountable.

This new tact fills me with hope, that the American people, who are largely opposed to abortion and embryonic stem-cell research. I urge everyone who reads this and has a respect for life to go to the PersonhoodUSA site, read their information, and consider donating and joinging the group for their state. Together as Christians and with God’s help, we can make this attrocity right and end the Holocaust of the Unborn. Thank you.

This story doesn’t deal directly with men in ministry, but it does deal with an interesting part of religious culture I have recently learned about. Apparently some countries put your religion on your identity card and other papers. if you live in one of these predominantly Muslim countries and you are blessed enough to learn about Christ and convert to Christianity, you have to go to court to petition to get your religious identity changed. I have seen several stories of this nature in the last several months, the current one about a woman from Malaysia.

Now here in the US people petition the courts for things like name changes all the time without any problem. But in these cases of Muslim countries, they do not want to see their citizens converting to Christianity. So in most cases the converts are given the run around or simply flat out denied their request. Some of these countries have both civil courts and Muslim Sharia courts. The civil courts will say the decision is out of their jurisdiction, while the Sharia courts will claim the conversion illegal or impossible. If this is not the case, Even worse, some countries only have Sharia courts.

At first I found these stories surprising, one because I never even considered the need to have my religious preference on my ID, and then because if there is a need to have this information on there, it should be a matter of filling out paperwork. But after some consideration I realized how much these hassles makes sense. Christians are the avowed enemies of Islam. Their religion teaches (despite what you hear in the mainstream media) that they are to convert the world or destroy it. So having someone convert in their home country is like having someone choose to defect, or commit treason. Allowing the light of Christ into their hearts is like living in darkness, thinking it’s the only way to live, and have someone come through with a bright beacon of light, and rejecting it as something strange and frightening.

I think we need to pray for these converts, that God will show them favor in the eyes of the Jurists in their community. That they will recognize their citizen’s right to choose their religion, and that Christ will continue to work in the hearts of these people, slowly working His way into every part of the world.

Amen.

Since these college prep classes must be approved by the University, it also means that the textbooks must be approved as well. This makes sense, until you observe the criteria that is used. Last year, the Universities of California excluded all textbooks for science, history and literature published by Christian publishers or that feature a Christian perspective. This means that Christian schools in California have to make a choice between using textbooks that teach from a Biblical perspective, or use the same type of textbooks as secular schools in order to assist their students in getting into these schools.

We have several problems here. First is the fact that these books are not being excluded based upon their facts, but on their Christian perspective. Now I could understand (though I would not agree) with a secular university excluding a science book that taught Creationism instead of Darwinism. Most scientists still believe the lie that Darwinism is correct, therefore it makes sense that they would use that type of book. But the University officials said the facts were not the issue, merely that the beginning of each chapter featured a Bible verse, and that if these verses were removed from the books they would probably be approved.

Can you believe it? because a textbook, printed by a Christian publisher, has verses of Scripture, it cannot be used for admission to the University of California. Now you may be thinking “well as a secular university they probably excluded all textbooks with a religious viewpoint.” Sadly, this is not true, and brings us to the second problem.

Books that featured the teachings of other faiths as part of their perspective were approved for use in these courses. These included Jewish, Buddhist, Women’s Studies, and African Studies (the latter two examples are not religions but merely other biased perspectives that were allowed to be used). So I guess it’s okay to be inclusive and multi-cultural, as long as those principles do not allow the perspective of Christianity. Never mind that Christianity is still the dominant religion in this country. Apparently that wold view is not welcome at the University of California.

A third problem is much more fundamental. Are not universities supposed to invite the thoughts, opinions and cultures of a multitude of people, for the purpose of sharing knowledge, and taking that knowledge back to your community for it’s betterment? If you chose to ignore one group, aren’t you preventing that free flow of ideas and prespectives?

But wait! Here is a possibility! For years, Christian students have lamented having Secular Humanist teachers, who criticize and try to destroy their faith, thinking that they are introducing them to the great secular world, which is so much more intelligent than that ancient religion they brought with them from their ignorant homes. Maybe these professors are afraid that if high school students are taught the scriptures, they will be better equipped to defend their faith before the class, and may even be able to witness to their non-Christian fellow students, denying them that wonderful secular Utopia the professors and schools promise!

Please leave a comment and let me know what you think. I would be very interested in starting a dialog about this issue, exploring other people’s opinions, or discussing the problems of this policy with other Christians. If you would like more information on this issue, please check out this article from world Net Daily.

Also, be sure to check back for part III of this series, which will feature some good news about the sad state of California.

UPDATE: The judge in this case has dismissed the case in summary judgment. This means that the judge looked at the briefs and paperwork from each side and decide their was not enough to have a trial. This is extremely disappointing, as it not only makes it difficult to appeal (the plaintiffs have nothing to argue constitutionally), but it says a minor precedent. This case should be taken VERY seriously, as it could put all Christian education in jeopardy. We need to pray for the protection of our right to raise our children in Christian schools with Godly teaching. If we don’t fight for it, we will lose it.