DriveThru – Get What You Need

On USA Today’s “Faith and Reason” blog, Betty Klinck reports on a campaign backed by numerous powerful and high profile homosexual and “transgender” rights groups.  The goal?  To persuade Christian church leaders and laity to take action on political issues so homosexuality will be normalized and affirmed in every area of society.

According to the “Believe Out Loud” website, this propaganda push is a

“multi-year and multi-tiered social marketing campaign to influence the attitudes, beliefs, and eventually governing policies of mainline Protestant clergy to welcome LGBT individuals into their fold.”

Don’t get me wrong, it would be one thing if this campaign were merely about the well-meaning and long-overdue “welcome” of people who experience same-sex attraction and gender incongruity. Those of us who hold a biblically orthodox view of human sexuality agree that all should be welcome in Christ’s church – regardless of our struggles or background.

But that’s a far cry from what “Believe Out Loud” is pushing.  They’ve said it’s not enough to accept, or even welcome and affirm. No, they’re demanding that Christian churches honor and openly celebrate a view of human sexuality which is clearly out of line with God’s created intent.

To achieve this goal, “Believe Out Loud” offers talking points and detailed “meaningful personal actions” aimed at clergy and lay leaders so they can convince those under their spiritual care that revisionist theology is biblical.  And, so they can encourage their followers to participate in efforts to put pro-LGBT social policies into law.

Through these resources, a well-funded, well-packaged and breathtakingly deceptive revision of Scripture is being pedaled like snake oil to many who trust in the spiritual authority of their clergy and lay leaders. By casting doubt on God’s Word, these wolves in sheep’s clothing put both feet and money to what is ultimately a secular political campaign – one that would normally have liberals howling for the separation of church and state.

But the most tragic aspect of this campaign is the spiritual toll.  By invoking themes like social justice to promote gay and “transgender” equality, God’s own definition of social justice is completely ignored.

True biblical social justice results in bringing God’s righteousness and order to bear in every arena of the culture.  If we really want to see social justice implemented in our churches, we must center it around speaking God’s truth in love about His purposes for sexuality, marriage and family.

The church does no favors to those who self-identify as gay or “transgender” by capitulating to the pro-homosexual culture and altering biblical truth on a topic as fundamental as how we bear His image as male and female.

By adopting this revisionist view, the church withholds from LGBT people the opportunity to repent of this particular area of sin and place it under the lordship of Christ. In the end, this denies people we love the fullness of life that comes with walking in obedience to God.  Do we really want to deny the blessings, freedom and peace that come with His forgiveness, grace, mercy, compassion and love?

Believers beware: the message of “Believe Out Loud” is one with grave and eternal consequences. In separating the wheat from the tares, it points to the time foretold in Scripture when even the elect might be deceived – with people throwing off sound doctrine and, instead, gathering around themselves teachers who tell them what their ears want to hear.  Knowing this, let’s be those who correctly “examine the Scriptures” to make sure what we’re being taught is true.

That is, if you’d like to continue the 9th Circuit’s reputation as the most bizarro, most liberal, most reversed appeals court in the federal system.

Liu, a Berkeley law professor, was nominated by President Obama for a vacant seat on the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals headquartered in San Francisco. An under-qualified but outspoken liberal, he has managed in his short few years out of law school to burnish and publicize his liberal credentials.

He’s a former board member for an exclusive list of far Left organizations: the ACLU of California, the American Constitution Society of Northern California, and the National Women’s Law Center. He managed to get himself invited to Justice Alito’s confirmation hearings to mischaracterize and then demagogue to the Judiciary committee about Alito’s record.

Liu wrote an op-ed criticizing California’s Prop 8 marriage amendment and the seven million citizens who voted for it by labeling it as “the will of a narrow and ultimately temporary majority.”

And last but certainly not least, Liu firmly has stated his belief in the desirability of courts making law from the bench: “What we mean by [constitutional] fidelity is that the Constitution should be interpreted in ways that adapt its principles and its text to the challenges and conditions of our society in every succeeding generation.”

This guy’s confirmation hearings should be interesting.

h/t to Ed Whelan at Bench Memos

Josh responds to my post “Rethinking the best age to marry”:

I checked out this site – http://www.divorcerate.org/ – and found that marriages by people younger than 25 account for over half the divorces in the US.

You’re in favor of people rushing into marriage when they’re younger, but it seems like you’re opposed to teens getting married. Could you clarify?

Josh,

Thanks for writing, and for looking into the research.

In response, I’d like to address first your comment that Focus on the Family is “in favor of people rushing into marriage when they’re younger.”  A look at the premarital resources offered in the online bookstore will indicate quite the opposite.  We believe that deciding to marry a person is one of the most important decisions in life, and Focus would never encourage anyone to rush into it.  Considering a younger age for marriage is a different question, and one that we think is worth parents and young adults giving a second thought.  Mark Regnerus’s article is very thought-provoking.

Additionally, with regard to the statistics, because the Web site you mentioned does not reference its statistical sources, I’m going to respond using a couple of other sources. David Lapp uses stats from the CDC  in his WSJ article.

First, let’s take a closer look at that term “early marriage.” While it’s true that teenage marriages are a significant predictor of divorce, it turns out that marriages of people in their early to mid-20s are not nearly as much at risk. According to a 2002 report from the Centers for Disease Control, 48% of people who enter marriage when under age 18, and 40% of 18- and 19-year-olds, will eventually divorce. But only 29% of those who get married at age 20 to 24 will eventually divorce—very similar to the 24% of the 25-and-older cohort. In fact, Hispanics who marry between the ages of 20 and 24 actually have a greater likelihood of marital success (31% chance of divorce) than those who first marry at age 25 and older (36% chance of divorce).

This is backed up in another publication you could check out.  “The State of Our Unions 2007” reports that,

Teenagers, high school drop-outs, and the non-religious who marry have considerably higher divorce rates.

On p. 20 of the same document they list factors that could lower a person’s risk of divorce.  Basically, if you married at age 23, had graduated high school and had some college, didn’t have any children previous to marriage, and went to church with your spouse, your chances of divorce are already drastically decreased.  It’s interesting stuff!

Thanks, again, for writing, Josh.

Jenny

If you haven’t turned on CSPAN, you need to.

The Democrats and Republicans are sitting at a table talking about the differences in their health care plans (and allegedly trying to come to some agreement).

I’m actually pretty glad that this is happening.  Why? Because even though they may not, at the end of the day, come to an agreement, this nationally televised health care summit is at least helping Americans understand, in pretty clear terms, what the Democrats want and what the Republicans want, why they disagree, and even where they do agree.  And that’s not something Americans always can understand easily when they’re bombarded with stock speeches and soundbites from floor speeches or in press conferences.   (And yes, this meeting of course contains some of that rhetoric).

For example, if you’ve been watching, you saw a disagreement between President Obama and Republican Senator Lamar Alexander over premium increases which lead to a great explanation of exactly why premiums would increase under the Obama plan.  And what’s even more interesting was that the president admitted that there was an honest disagreement over facts,  and that “by the end of the meeting” they would have those facts settled.

You can tune in to CSPAN to listen all day.

Focus on the Family’s marriage simulcast event is this weekend.  You can still attend at one of the event sites across the country.

Featured speakers include Gary Thomas, Dr. Gary Chapman, Les and Leslie Parrott, Francis Chan, Kirk and Chelsea Cameron and Stephen Kendrick.

There was a great response to last year’s inaugural event with thousands in attendance across the U.S. Find a host site near you.

This headline from a U.K. publication caught my eye.

“Lap-dancing clubs increase while library numbers drop,” and the article includes these details.

The number of lap-dancing clubs has increased from 24 to 300 since 1997, but the number of public libraries has shrunk by 6 per cent in the same period.

Schools, police stations, hospitals and public toilets have also become a rarer sight on the nation’s streets, the figures show.

A photo caption with the article says that this is a 1,150% increase in lap-dancing clubs.

This is the trajectory of a western country in which most adults are not marrying, and the church–informally sidelined since at least WWII–is now officially sidelined by so-called “equality” legislation that would further stifle the religious freedoms of people and organizations.

It’s beginning to look a bit like the U.K. version of Pottersville, and I mean the Jimmy Stewart variety rather than the Harry variety.  Can the U.S. be very far behind?  And who wants to live in Pottersville, anyway?

Tomorrow I’ll add a link to a Citizen magazine story that goes in-depth about the loss of religious freedom in the U.K.  It will be posted here.

First it was: How will the Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts impact this summer’s choice of a replacement for the almost-certainly retiring Justice Stevens? Then there was speculation that there might be TWO vacancies, Stevens and Ginsburg.

Now we hear from another Supreme Court expert, Tom Goldstein at SCOTUSblog that the President’s domestic policy problems this year will augur for a moderate nominee with no baggage involving controversial positions, like – Elena Kagan.

Stop. What?

Does he mean the same Elena Kagan who e-mailed the entire Harvard Law School faculty and student body (she was the law school Dean)  about her “deep distress” over the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. She said she “abhorred” DADT  and called it a “profound wrong – a moral injustice of the first order.” She signed on to a Supreme Court legal brief opposing the DADT-related Solomon Amendment (requiring universities that accept federal funding to allow military recruiters on campus), a position that the Supreme Court rejected 9-0. Let me say that again. She was dead wrong  by a 9-0 vote.

And it’s not just the fact that she was 180 degrees wrong on the constitutional arguments about DADT, but the underlying cause for it that’s important. In case you’re not quite understanding this, let me say it plainly:  Her support for the homosexual agenda is so strong that it clouds her ability to think impartially on the subject. As I discussed in a previous post referenced above, she and Professor Feldblum, another much-discussed potential nominee, are near-certain votes for all things gay.

With the Perry marriage case working its way toward the Supreme Court over the next few years, I’m thinking that if President Obama is looking for a moderate this summer, a sure vote to redefine marriage is a non-starter for most Americans.

(note: to prevent a few unnecessary reader e-mails, I’m aware that the Solomon amendment case came out differently at the Third Circuit. But when you lose Justice Ginsburg and the other three SCOTUS libs, you’re not even close.)

It’s the 40-year anniversary of the first no-fault divorce laws, and the results are in: it’s bad policy.  At least two generations of children have suffered, and many young adults have never seen a stable marriage, let alone one that lasted more than 30 years.

Ruth Bettelheim recognized the anniversary in a NY Times article and defended the no-fault laws.  Since divorce is here to stay she said, we need to focus on how to “avoid, as much as possible, damaging children.”

Bettelheim is a marriage and family therapist, and she mentions a few studies that no doubt ease the minds of adults.  I say this because she neglects research Elizabeth Marquardt mentions in an unpublished letter to the editor.  One tidbit about “even successful young people”:

Most said their parents did *not* have a lot of conflict after the divorce, and yet the grown children of divorce report a profound and lonely inner conflict, even when their parents did not fight.

Bettelheim tries to avoid it, but reality definitely bites.

In an odd twist, this anniversary falls the year that Dr. Dobson leaves Focus on the Family; this is his last week on campus.  In the 70’s, his work as a child psychologist at USC gave him a window-seat view into the lives of families experiencing divorce.  He started FOF in 1977 in part so he could help more children grow up with both their married mom and dad.

We celebrate Dr. Dobson this week and the calling to which he is so faithful.  And we’ll continue on the path he started—doing all we can to help children grow up with both their mom and dad.

For years, there’s been a push among liberals for national standards. (Remember the failed attempt during the Clinton years?)

But thanks to this country’s long tradition of giving states and local communities primary control over what’s taught in our taxpayer-funded classrooms, those efforts have failed.

But now the “experts” in Washington, D.C., think they’ve found a way around that obstacle: The Obama administration and cronies have been loudly promoting “voluntary,” “common standards,” developed by a consortium of organizations (including those in the academic testing industry, the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers).

So far 48 states have joined this effort, with Texas and Alaska being the only hold outs.

But there’s some dissension in the ranks lately—as states and  school boards discover they may have signed up for more than they bargained for. The first signs of that came when the Obama administration began citing the standards as a qualifier for Race to the Top money.

And many were taken aback earlier this month when “common standards” organizers revealed that “States that adopt the proposed common academic standards must use the document word for word,” reported Education Week.

In response to that surprise announcement, school board members in several states have voiced concerns about whether they could lose Race to the Top funds if they change their minds about swallowing the standards whole—and about the fact that they haven’t seen a final version of the standards.

One Montana board member (quoted in Education Week) repeated questions he’s been getting from concerned citizens in his state: “Where will we draw the line? First it’s standards, then curriculum, then textbooks.”

In Colorado, a state that recently revised standards, a board member expressed concern that they’re not “anxious to throw out our standards and start all over again…”

Just call it the first signs of buyers’ remorse.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration continues to roll out plans that make this effort look less and less voluntary—including money budgeted for states to create “common assessments” (read tests) and yesterday’s announcement that Obama wants to require states to adopt “college and career-ready” standards in order to qualify for Title I funding for impoverished students.

Today, President Obama finally raised the veil on his much-awaited plans for revamping the nation’s signature education law (known as No Child Left Behind under President Bush).  

It’s the next step in what the Administration has been heavily promoting as the “common standards” for schools movement – a plan that dangles carrot money in front of states who agree to “voluntarily” abide by agreed-upon education standards. 

 But it looks like those carrots are transforming into sticks.

The centerpiece theme? Obama wants to “require all states to adopt and certify that they have college- and career-ready standards.” States that don’t meet that requirement wouldn’t qualify for federal funding for lower-income students (Title I).

So, who gets to decide the definition of “college- and career-ready standards”? Good question.

It seems the federal government would only certify state standards as acceptable if they 1) join the common standards movement (which some states have already discovered has more regulation than meets the eye) or 2) they are deemed certifiable  through a mysterious “process to be developed with universities,” according to a Washington Post article.)

What’s so sad about this, is that the more the federal government gets involved in policing education standards—the more parents will lose their ability to weigh in on what’s being taught in local schools.

Many conservatives expressed concerns when the Bush administration expanded the federal government’s role in public education through No Child Left Behind—but President Obama’s latest plans take federal intrusion a giant leap beyond that, opening the door toward unprecedented curriculum control and “assessment” testing.

(The White House press release calls “common standards” the “essential first step” and announces other funding roll outs designed to spur tie-ins like an “upgrade” in curriculum and “assessment” –read, tests–development.)

Right now, it’s easy to take for granted the fact that most parents can take a complaint about what’s in their child’s textbook to the local school board, or gather enough community signatures to gain a change in curriculum.

But if Washington succeeds with this latest power gab—your school board and your voice—won’t matter anymore. Because whoever sets the standards pulls the strings.