Category Archives: family

Christmas: Promise and Purpose

By Daniel Downs

Christmas is a multifaceted story about real events wrapped in two narratives. The two narratives are found in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. Like a new train and its track, these two narratives are part of one colorfully packaged gift given to humanity by God. Together they show the meaning of Christmas.

Some scholars and teachers rightly say the reason for the season is God’s love, peace, and forgiveness of sin.

The first gospel begins with teen pregnancy. Yes, it’s true the Hebrew word translated virgin actually means young woman or teen girl. It’s equally true that in ancient Jewish culture teenage girls were expected to marry and then bear children. Out-of-wedlock pregnancies were as unlawful as immoral. The social stigmatism would have been as illiberal as Scarlet Letter puritanism. Just as a barren wife, a young unwed mother would have experienced the discriminating scorn of a religious society. Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret the transliterated Hebrew word almah as virgin (Mt. 1:23; Isa. 7:14).

Rabbinical literature originating in Babylonia portrays young Mary as mistress of a Roman soldier. Whether because of sinful consent, seduction or rape, Mary’s pregnancy was conceived by rabbis opposed to the gospel message as adulterated sin. The Palestinian view, as scholars call it, is considerably different. It lacked any negative diatribes against Mary or her son. Just as the Palestinian Talmud reflects its local context, the two gospel narratives were rooted in local events and daily life in Judea and Samaria.

We also will find the meaning of Christmas grounded in the same geographical, cultural, ideological, and historical situation of then current events.

While reading our two narrative gifts, two bright themes twinkle like lights reflecting off shinny wrappings. Those themes are promise and purpose. As if sitting prominently under a Christmas tree, the two themes are wrapped with bright colorful interpretations of unfolding events. Those events appear to be fulfillment of promises made by God through even more ancient prophets. As such, they reveal as well as affirm the purpose of God.

For example, the gospel of Matthew begins the story of Jesus’ birth with marriage. “Mary has been betrothed to Joseph…her husband (1:18, 19). In ancient Jewish culture, engagement was regarded as the beginning of a marriage. While Joseph was thinking about divorcing her, an angel told him to keep his wife because her pregnancy was God’s doing (1:19-20). Why would God do such a thing? The angel continued telling Joseph that Mary’s son would save his people. At that time, most Israelis were expecting a Messiah that would deliver them from the oppressive rule of the Roman Empire and puppet kings like Herod. That was not God’s purpose. Jesus was adopted and formed in the womb of Joseph’s virgin wife to save his people from their sins (1:20-21). This was seen by ancient writers like Matthew as fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy about the Messiah (1:20-21; Isa. 7:14). As evident in writings like Psalms of Solomon, 1 Enoch, and Dead Sea Scrolls, the Messiah of David would represent the holy presence of God and lead all Jews into sinless living. In fact some believed the law would pass away when the true Messiah began to reign. For the law not to be needed meant all had to live holy lives at all times. Being capable of doing so meant the Messiah had to be as holy and sinless as those he would make holy or sinless. That is what the name “Immanuel” or “God with us” meant to those same ancient people.

If we trace the biblical history of God’s redemption, God chooses marriage and family as part of the means to its end.

The purpose of marriage is narrated in Genesis (2:18-25). After their moral crime, Adam and Eve were given a promised future in which God’s purpose would continue. Adam and Eve would create a society of families who would make God’s creation productive and who would overcome temptation and immorality (Gen. 3). It was for married society that God offered the first animal sacrifice in order to cover the naked guilt and shame of the first traditionally married couple. The clothing also served to minimize temptation (Gen. 3:21-23). Nevertheless, sibling rivalry and sexual perversion motivated by jealousy and lust followed (Gen. 4:1-24). One result was the rise of the first walled urban city, according to archaeology. Beginning with Adam’s grandson, the descendants of Adam began seeking God’s redemption (Gen. 4:25-26). Why? Because human decadence also continued until it dominated society. This was followed with the family of Noah being saved from the flood as well as the continuation the covenant of redemption that began with Adam (Gen. 6-8 & 9-10). The fulfillment of God’s redemptive purpose was given greater specificity with the family of Abraham. Through this family, God promised to bless the entire world (Gen. 12-17). At the same time, the sterile couple, Abraham and Sarah, was promised a son, Isaac, through whom the promise would be fulfilled in history (Gen. 15, 18). Yet, the promise was The same could be said about the family of David and the promised Messiah (2 Sa. 7:12-16; Rom. 1:1-4). Not only through a specific descendant of David would Israel’s redemption be realized but all people across the globe would have access to it as well. With the virgin birth of Jesus, the promised redemption began to be fulfilled.

As we have seen, God chose a young married couple to bring His adopted son into the world. The fact that an angel visibly announced God’s adoptive purpose for Jesus’ life before his conception gave them a solemn mission of parenting. Their purpose was to raise God’s son to fulfill his life purpose—the salvation of Israel as well as rule of the kingdom (Lk. 1: 32-33). All of this was affirmed first by the priestly shepherds who were told by a host of angels that the salvation this new born King would bring was for all people (Lk. 2:10-14). Further affirmation came at Jesus’ dedication by the temple priest Simeon (Lk. 2:21-32). Simeon again affirmed that Jesus was salvation for both Jews and gentiles according to Isaiah 49:5-6. Finally, the ambassadors of Parthia, the Magi, came escorted by a military regiment to pay homage to the newly born Messiah (Mt. 2:1-6). Consequently, Mary and Joseph were parents with a holy mission to deliver God’s gift of salvation holy and sinless for both Israel and the world. They had godly relatives and friends as well as a culture defined by God’s word (however tainted by sin and the influence of Rome’s presence) to assist them.

This was God’s Christmas gift to all people for all times. Jesus’ parents wrapped him in a Hanukkah candle wick because God wanted all people to see that His son is true light of the world (Lk. 2:12-14). While his destiny was to suffer the shame and judgment for all sins of all people on the cross and in hell, God saw the fulfillment of his redemptive purpose advance toward final fulfillment (Isa. 53). Having fully satisfied divine justice, God raised His son from hell, from death’s tomb, and from the rejection of ignorant men. And, by lifting His son up to His side in heaven, the light of His peace, grace, and holy life forever shines for all to behold and embrace. God’s just forgiveness, His presence and empowerment, and His acceptance are continually held out by our gentle risen Shepherd and Lord Jesus. The gift only has to be received and lived. When all parents and their children do, society will finally realize the common good of God’s will. Then peace will then reign on earth.

World Congress Of Families Hails Victory For Natural Marriage In Australian Parliament

What was supposed to be a historic advance for “same-sex marriage” turned into an ignominous defeat and a victory for marriage and the natural family, when the lower house of the Australian parliament voted overwhelmingly against a gay-marriage bill by a vote of 98 to 42 on September 19th in Canberra. Then on September 20th, a similar bill was defeated in the Senate by 41 votes to 26.

This means that there will be no change to the definition of natural marriage in Australia.

World Congress of Families Managing Director Larry Jacobs congratulated Australian pro-family forces on a hard-earned victory, including three World Congress of Families Partners in Australia, the Australian Family Association, Endeavour Forum and Dads-4-Kids Fatherhood Foundation.

“When the governing Australian Labor Party abandoned its longstanding defense of natural marriage, it was supposed to all be over except for the celebration on the part of homosexual activists,” Jacobs observed.

“But thanks to the hard work of Australian groups like the National Marriage Coalition, the Australian Family Association, Endeavour Forum, the Dads-4-Kids Foundation, and the intense lobbying of hundreds of thousands of ordinary Australians in behalf of maintaining the historic definition of marriage, 40% of Labor MPs in the House joined members of the National and Liberal Parties to defeat this step toward the deconstruction of natural marriage,” Jacobs added.

Earlier this year thousands of pro-family leaders gathered to affirm natural marriage in The Madrid Declaration of World Congress of Families VI (May 25-27, 2012), unanimously adopted by more than 3,200 delegates from 72 nations. The Declaration provides in part:

“We affirm the natural family to be the union of a man and a woman through marriage for the purposes of sharing love and joy, propagating children, providing their moral education, building a vital home economy, offering security in times of trouble, and binding the generations.”

“We affirm that the natural family is a fixed aspect of the created order, one ingrained in human nature. The natural family cannot change into some new shape; nor can it be re-defined by eager social engineers.”

“We affirm that the natural family is the ideal, optimal, true family system. While we acknowledge varied living situations, all other ‘family forms’ are incomplete or are mere fabrications of the state.”

Jacobs further noted that in the United States, 31 states have now adopted the definition of marriage as “the union of a man and a woman,” all by popular vote. The latest was North Carolina, in May, by a vote of 61% to 39% where WCF Partner, the National Organization for Marriage was instrumental in defending natural marriage. “Every time the people have had a chance to vote directly on the issue, the only definition of natural marriage that protects children has carried decisively,” Jacobs declared.

The Honorable Kevin Andrews MP, a 3-time World Congress of Families Speaker, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services and author of the new book, Maybe ‘I do’: Modern Marriage and the Pursuit of Happiness, has summarized the key reason for protecting natural marriage in his remarks at the 2012 National Marriage Day Rally at the Australian Parliament. “Hundreds of social science studies reveal that having a mother and a father is the optimal condition for human thriving. We remove this protection at great risk to many, especially children. Marriage must be protected. The future well being of children and society depends on it.”

US Experts Testify on Dangers of Disabilities Treaty

By Lisa Correnti

(WASHINGTON, DC – C-FAM) A panel of experts warned U.S. lawmakers this week that the UN Disabilities treaty could threaten the rights of parents and advance abortion rights.

“This treaty… would allow unelected bureaucrats in Switzerland to determine the meaning of the words ‘disability’ and ‘sexual reproductive health,’ said Congressman Jeff Duncan following a briefing to the House Sovereignty Caucus. “Such ambiguity could lead to frivolous litigation and advancing abortion as a ‘human right.’”

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) passed the Senate Foreign Affairs subcommittee in July. An amendment by Senator Marco Rubio clarifying that the treaty cannot be used to advance abortion was supported by all Republicans senators but was defeated when all Democratic senators voted against it.

Dr. Susan Yoshihara explained to the Caucus how “sexual and reproductive health” was inserted in the treaty despite a lack of consensus. The Director of the International Organizations Research Group at C-FAM participated in the UN negotiations on CRPD.

“In order to get this term into the Disabilities Treaty, proponents had to circumvent the objections of 23 nations, resorting to such tactics as secret meetings and venues where not all delegations were allowed” she said.

Some U.S. senators support the treaty on the belief that pro-life protections exist since the term “reproductive health” is mentioned as a category of non-discrimination and not as a right. Dr. Yoshihara cautioned against this false sense of security.

“This should not allay the fears of pro-life lawmakers or make them think that this treaty will not be used to advance a right to abortion,” she said. “The Women’s Convention, CEDAW, never mentions abortion or ‘reproductive health’ nor does ICCPR [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights], but their committees have pressured more than 90 countries over 120 times to liberalize abortion.”

Treaty proponents say “reservations” agreed to by the U.S. Senate will protect against any problems. The experts, however, called reservations inadequate. Dr. Yoshihara recalled a U.S. Supreme Court decision (Roper) in which the court “cited a portion of the ICCPR that the United States had specifically rejected in a reservation.”

Michael Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, warned that the CRPD threatens the rights of parents of special needs children. “Government agents, and not parents, are being given the authority to decide all educational and treatment issues for disabled children.”

“Signing the treaty is an empty gesture” said Steven Groves with the Heritage Foundation. “Current U.S. law meets or exceeds the provisions of the Convention, and mere membership in the Convention will not convince the international community that America protects the rights of its disabled citizens,” he continued.

Concerns about the CRPD were expressed by the Holy See delegation when the UN adopted it in 2006. Explaining why they could not support it, the delegation stated, “It is surely tragic that…the same Convention created to protect persons with disabilities from all discrimination in the exercise of their rights, may be used to deny the very basic right to life of disabled unborn persons.”

The U.S. does not need to ratify the treaty to gain moral authority, noted Rep. Duncan and his co-chair of the Sovereignty Caucus Rep. Doug Lamborn. “America is already one of the world’s leaders in advancing the cause of those with disabilities,” said Lamborn.

Resistance to the treaty is growing. A letter from congressmen urging senators to reject the CRPD now has 49 signatures.

Lisa Correnti is Director of Operations at C-FAM. Her article first appeared in the Friday Fax, an internet report published weekly by C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute (http://www.c-fam.org/).

Your Pediatrician and Your Parental Rights

By now, the experience can only be called “commonplace.” You take your child to the doctor for a rash or a sore throat, and the next thing you know your child is fielding some unrelated questions: “Is there a gun in your home? Do you usually wear a seatbelt when riding in the car? What’s your favorite music?”

If you haven’t yet heard such a dialogue between your child and the doctor, that doesn’t mean this is not occurring. “Doctors are trained in residency how to gently steer the parent out of the room so that they can do an assessment,” reports pediatrician and ParentalRights.org board member Verlainna Callentine, M.D. “The mindset is that because so many adolescents stay healthy, there are few opportunities to have a medical impact on the child once they get out of the early years of development. When a child comes in for a particular complaint, the opportunity is seized to assess other risk factors in the child’s life.”

Dr. Callentine continues, “Absolutely, it can be intrusive. It is intentional. Some doctors may not want parents to know the kinds of questions being asked out of fear that the answers they will receive from the child will not be honest and truthful.”

This line of questioning is called a “psychosocial evaluation”. There are many of these evaluation tools used in pediatric offices. One such tool is the HEEADSSS assessment, and it has been around for years. HEEADSSS is an acronym for the myriad topics the probe is intended to cover: Home, Education & Employment, Eating & Exercise, Activities and Peer Relationships, Drug /Cigarette/Alcohol Use, Sexuality, Suicide & Depression, and Safety. Some will also include Spirituality, including questions like “Does your family affiliate with any faith community?” and “How often do you go to church/synagogue/mosque/etc.?”

You won’t believe some of the questions doctors are being urged to ask your child. Click hear to see one such questionnaire.

If government doctors were using this, there would be constitutional issues immediately. Private doctors, however, are not limited by the Constitution. So while some doctors in certain instances could possibly be held liable for invasion of privacy, the best defense is to be aware and prepared to avoid the problem entirely.

“Parents need to be educated and understand how to navigate the healthcare system with their child,” Dr. Callentine says. “They need to know they have the right to say, ‘No’ or to request to be present during the discussion so they can best partner with the healthcare provider. Parents are the advocate for their children. It is through a ‘healthy’ partnership with their pediatrician that parents and children can best be served.”

“We need to educate the parents,” Dr. Rosemary Stein, an adjunct teaching professor at the Children’s Hospital of UNC-Chapel Hill, agrees.

According to Dr. Stein, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) set up a committee several years ago to promote ratification of the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in the United States. That committee is linked very strongly to medical teaching programs across the country, using its influence to see that the international model – including HEEADSSS assessments – is presented as “the way to practice medicine” in the U.S. (Dr. Stein was a fellow of the AAP until resigning over philosophical differences.)

The HEEADSSS assessment was first introduced by Americans G.M. Cohen and E. Goldenring in Contemporary Pediatrics in 1988. Obviously, then, it didn’t come from the United Nations. However, the implementation of HEEADSSS and of the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) can have striking parallels. That is because both include the notable presumption that parents are agents to be monitored rather than the natural safeguard for their children’s health and rights.

This shared premise makes it easy to employ the CRC and the HEEADSSS assessment together to impede parental rights around the world. The New South Wales (Australia) Center for the Advancement of Adolescent Health (NSW CAAH) has published a popular “Resource Kit” to help doctors learn to administer these assessments. According to their website, the NSW CAAH “believe[s] that all young people have the right to comprehensive health care,” a catch-phrase in international law signifying the “right” of teenagers to make health decisions– especially in the areas of drug use and sexuality (including abortion) – without parental oversight, input, or consent. Not coincidentally, this “right” is often called for by the Committee on the Rights of the Child, which consistently interprets Article 24 of the CRC to include this obligation.

The mindset is the same: parents are an obstruction that must be removed from the room so that the needs of adolescents can be met.

While it is true that there are rare instances where that is in fact the case, fit parents have the fundamental right to direct the care of their children – and that includes the right to grant or deny consent for a doctor to perform a “psychosocial assessment” of your child.

Sadly, the rise of electronic medical records and the drift toward government health care point to a day when the data collected through these assessments will find its way into the hands of the government. And the push to ratify the CRC could introduce a day when the assessment is seen as a legal necessity to fulfill the government’s obligation to ensure the best interests of every child.

For now, though, you do have the right to say, “No.” When the doctor asks you to leave the room for the sake of your child’s privacy, the two of you together – you and your child – have all the legal authority to protect your family against this intrusion. Many states allow the doctor to honor your teen’s wishes over your own, but not to insert the doctor’s own wishes over those of you and your child together.

The proposed Parental Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution will ensure that this right of parents “to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their child” will remain “a fundamental right.” It will prevent ratification of the CRC and halt the intrusion of the government into your home and privacy. It will also guarantee that no law is passed to take away your right to tell an intrusive doctor, “No.”

Source: August 28, 2012 parentalrights.org email.

Moscow Bans LGBT Parade

By Stefano Gennarini, J.D.

(GENEVA – C-FAM) Likely the Russians are furious. Last year the Russian government initiated a process at the Human Rights Council in Geneva that was supposed to lead to a resolution touting traditional values. They rediscovered what they likely already knew, that such debates at the UN are fraught with danger, particularly for those who want to support traditional values. The constellation of forces hostile to traditional values is large and aggressive.

The Russians had hoped their resolution could find a positive link between traditional values and human rights generally. A drafting committee offered a preliminary study last February that was acceptable to pro-family delegates. But opposition quickly formed. Homosexual groups were particularly vocal in opposing the draft report. Opponents charged that the draft failed to address what they consider to be a conflict between traditional values and human rights.

The preliminary study emphasized universal traditional values shared by all people, in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It highlighted the connections between traditional values and human rights, maintaining that the normative force of human rights has its roots in the moral force of traditional values. It contained explicit references to the right to life, the role of the family in society, as well as major religions.

But the United States and some European countries objected that the rights of women and homosexual and transgender persons are frequently undermined by traditional values and religion, and that something should be said in the study about the conflict. The International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) joined the criticisms.

Following this objection, the Chinese expert on the Advisory Committee of the Human Rights Council (HRC), Chung Chinsung, re-wrote the study, omitting positive references to the right to life, the family, and religion. The new draft study was discussed last week in Geneva, and countries, experts, and NGOs that had complained were overall satisfied with the changes.

The new draft drops the universalistic approach. In fact, the new draft does not even recognize the existence of universal traditional values, dismissing the quest for universality as a red herring. Instead, it points out that multiple traditional values exist, and they are constantly evolving. Some are consonant with human rights. But others are not.

This new approach puts human rights squarely above and against traditional values. In the draft study, the Advisory Committee declares which traditional values are in conflict with human rights, and which ones are not.

The new draft makes the case that traditional values undermine the rights of women and minorities. It finds that certain traditions and religions spread “stereotypes about femininity, sexual orientation and the role and status of women in society.” It also lists some “best practices” to show how, in some circumstances, traditional values can reinforce human rights. None of these examples are from western countries. In fact, the new draft finds that “traditional and cultural values in Western countries propagate harmful practices, such as domestic violence.”

The new study was scheduled to appear during the September session of the HRC. But it clearly requires some further polishing, and the Committee has asked the HRC for more time.

“Gay parades banned in Moscow for 100 years” 17 August 2012

Moscow’s top court has upheld a ban on gay pride marches in the Russian capital for the next 100 years.

Earlier Russia’s best-known gay rights campaigner, Nikolay Alexeyev, had gone to court hoping to overturn the city council’s ban on gay parades.

He had asked for the right to stage such parades for the next 100 years.

He also opposes St Petersburg’s ban on spreading “homosexual propaganda”. The European Court of Human Rights has told Russia to pay him damages.

On Friday he said he would go back to the European Court in Strasbourg to push for a recognition that Moscow’s ban on gay pride marches – past, present and future – was unjust.

The Moscow city government argues that the gay parade would risk causing public disorder and that most Muscovites do not support such an event.

In September, the Council of Europe – the main human rights watchdog in Europe – will examine Russia’s response to a previous European Court ruling on the gay rights issue, Russian media report.

In October 2010 the court said Russia had discriminated against Mr Alexeyev on grounds of sexual orientation. It had considered Moscow’s ban on gay parades covering the period 2006-2008.

This article written by Stefano Gennarini, who is Director of the Center for Legal Studies at the Catholic Family and Human Right Institute (C-FAM), first appeared in FridayFax, an internet report published weekly by C-FAM. C-FAM is a New York and Washington DC-based research institute (http://www.c-fam.org).

World Congress of Families Leadership Letter Protests U.S. Embassy Participation in Prague “Gay Pride” Parade

More than 120 pro-family and pro-life leaders from 11 countries signed a letter initiated by the World Congress of Families, protesting the U.S. Embassy’s participation in the Prague “Gay Pride” parade on August 18.

Signers include a former President of the Southern Baptist Convention, a former Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, a former Arkansas Governor, the head of Torah Jews for Decency and the former Venezuelan Ambassador to the Vatican. (Click here for list of all signers.)

The letter notes that the Obama administration has made promoting gay rights – including same-sex marriage – a foreign policy priority. If also observes the irony of those who complain ceaselessly about “cultural imperialism,” trying to force the worldviews of the American left on societies with traditional values.

It further comments that: “The United Nations has never affirmed homosexual marriage or rights” and that the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights specifically says that “men and women…have a right to marry and found a family.” Family is described as “the natural and fundamental group unit of society” and, as such, “is entitled to protection by society and the state.”

The Madrid Declaration of World Congress of Families VI (May 25-27, 2012) – unanimously adopted by more than 3,200 delegates from 72 countries – reads in part: “We affirm the natural family to be the union of a man and a woman through marriage for the purposes of sharing love and joy, propagating children, providing their moral education, building a vital home economy, offering security in times of trouble, and binding the generations.”

The letter continues: “Regarding ‘gay rights,’ those caught up in this lifestyle have the same rights as other citizens. This does not include the ‘right’ to force others to validate a lifestyle they find objectionable, for religious or other reasons. It also does not include the right of men to marry men and women to marry women. The foregoing pseudo-rights do not advance human freedom and dignity but debase them.” (Click here to read the full text.)

World Congress of Families Managing Director Larry Jacobs observed: “When the Czechs asked us to rally international support for the natural family, it was serendipitous. World Congress of Families I was held in Prague in 1997, with the support the Civic Forum and Michal Semin, who’s organized opposition to the Prague gay parade.

Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day A Success

Although I can offer no dollar figure to measure the level of the Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day event, the long lines witnessed at the Fairfield Road restaurant
was proof enough. There were multiple lines of people streaming in and out of the restaurant. There were two lines of cars circling the building with 5 friendly attendants taking and serving orders. The lines extended into the street both at noon and at 2 PM. If the same was true at other locations across the nation, the event to support a Christian owned restaurant was a huge success indeed.

Of course, it was a wonderful political statement as well. Supporting the family and the traditional meaning of marriage is certainly worthy of support.

Billy Graham Offers His Support to Chick-fil-A

“I want to express my support for my good friends Truett Cathy and his son Dan Cathy, and for their strong stand for the Christian faith. I’ve known their family for many years and have watched them grow Chick-fil-A into one of the best businesses in America while never compromising their values. Chick-fil-A serves each of its customers with excellence, and treats everyone like a neighbor. It’s easy to see why Chick-fil-A has become so popular across America.

Each generation faces different issues and challenges, but our standard must always be measured by God’s word. I appreciate the Cathy family’s public support for God’s definition of marriage.

I also appreciate Governor Mike Huckabee’s leadership and for encouraging Americans to support Chick-fil-A on August 1. As the son of a dairy farmer who milked many a cow, I plan to “Eat Mor Chikin” and show my support by visiting Chick-fil-A on Wednesday.

———————————–

Chick-fil-a restuarant locator and menu.

SCOTUS Healthcare Ruling Endangers Freedom

By David E. Smith

As you know by now, in a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled yesterday to uphold the core provisions of President Barack Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPAC). By their decision, we now face an egregious threat to American liberty.

This federal legislation contains a highly controversial and unpopular Individual Mandate, which, if not repealed, will force Americans to “buy” federally approved or sponsored healthcare plans or pay a penalty for non-compliance. Contrary to their promises to Congress as well as to the general public, proponents of the PPAC have succeeded in arguing to the Supreme Court that the Individual Mandate will function as a federal tax. We are very concerned that this will set a dangerous precedent for federal mandates.

We believe this law is a threat to personal liberty, religious freedom and family choices. It gives government bureaucrats alarming power over individual citizen’s healthcare decisions and will lead to future conflicts of conscience. Americans will be forced to choose either to comply and abandon their religious beliefs or resist and be fined for exercising their deeply held beliefs.

The PPAC includes provisions for abortion-inducing drugs, contraception and sterilizations, and tax dollars will subsidize many types of abortions. By advancing taxpayer funding of abortion, the PPAC is an attack on religious freedom and individual liberty.

We urge our national lawmakers to repeal the PPAC, and rather than rushing through an expansive overhaul, Congress needs to take a reasonable approach to reforming what’s wrong with healthcare. The federal reach into the lives of each and every American citizen is of grave concern. And the accompanying threats to freedom of conscience challenge the very concept of liberty.

We hope and pray that this monumental decision will be the catalyst to awaken and unite American voters – especially people of faith – this November. It should also serve to remind believers that we should be praying for true revival and the spread of the Gospel. As my friend Pastor James McDonald of Morton, Illinois pointed out on his Facebook page, “Do we understand that the One who orchestrates the end, orchestrates the means, and the means He uses is our faithful witness? Rise up, O Church of God!”

And here’s what others are saying:

“Today’s Supreme Court decision will do serious harm to American families. Not only is the individual mandate a profound attack on our liberties, but it is only one section among hundreds of provisions in the law that will force taxpayers to fund abortions, violate their conscience rights, and impose a massive tax and debt burden on American families.

“The Obama administration has created, for the first time in American history, new federal regulations that toss aside the constitutional right to religious freedom by forcing religious institutions and employers to pay for abortion-causing drugs, contraceptives and sterilizations.

“It’s now time to replace those leaders who disregarded the constitutional limitations of their authority and the deeply held religious beliefs of their constituents, voting for the government takeover of healthcare. We must repeal this abortion-funding health care law and restore the Constitution to its rightful place.” Tony Perkins. President of the Family Research Council

”We are outraged to see the Supreme Court ignoring the constitutional limits the Founders put in place to constrain the federal government’s power over us. Shame on them!

With this decision they have given a blank check to the federal government, forever altering the constitutional concept of checks and balances that has been so crucial throughout our history.

We wholeheartedly believe we must strive to make health care more affordable for all Americans. But it is inconceivable to believe we must infringe on our constitutional rights in order to achieve that.

Women will be especially hurt by today’s decision. As we have seen with the contraception mandate, the politicization of so-called women issues by the left leaves the majority of women extremely vulnerable to the exploitation of a few radical groups that exert much political influence in Congress and the White House. ~ Penny Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America

“This is a stunning decision to uphold ObamaCare as a tax. Congress relied upon the Commerce Clause, not the Taxing and Spending Clause. The Court ignored the intent of Congress, which did not intend the mandate to be a tax but rather a penalty. Rulings like this on ObamaCare undermine the confidence of the people in the competency of the Supreme Court to follow the rule of law. Today’s decision damages the image of the Supreme Court and is bad for America.” Mat Staver, Founder and President of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law

“The ‘individual mandate’ was just one problem with the law. Our tax dollars are still being used to subsidize abortion and our Catholic institutions are still being forced to violate our beliefs.

“Congress must act immediately to fix the critical flaws in the health care law and begin to replace them with measured, sensible reforms. At the very least, they should not allow any tax dollars to be used to implement the law while remedies are decided. We encourage them to focus their energy on improving our nation’s health care system in a way that respects all stages of life, protects our consciences, and avoids negatively impacting the economic conditions of Americans.” ~ Matt Smith, President of Catholic Advocate

“It is astonishing that the majority of the justices did not see the bill for what it really is: a blatant violation of the personal freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution and perhaps a mortal blow to the concept of federalism… “When a government begins forcing citizens to purchase what it thinks is important or necessary, that government takes a dangerous step away from the freedom-embracing, democratic model.” ~ Richard Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.

“The president’s health care law is hurting our economy by driving up health costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire. Today’s ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety. What Americans want is a common-sense, step-by-step approach to health care reform that will protect Americans’ access to the care they need, from the doctor they choose, at a lower cost. Republicans stand ready to work with a president who will listen to the people and will not repeat the mistakes that gave our country ObamaCare.” ~ U.S. House Speaker John Boehner

“President Obama’s health care law stands as one of the largest tax increases in American history, it will be paid for by young Americans, whose dreams and plans for the future have already been derailed by failed policies that have denied their access to full-time, meaningful jobs in their chosen career paths. Young adults know they will pay the true costs of President Obama’s legislation — over a trillion dollars more in federal spending, more waste and fraud, increased American debt, and the inability to keep or choose healthcare plans that best suit their needs as individuals. Elections have consequences, and young adults will be organizing themselves far more actively than some might assume — they will not settle for leadership that ignores their concerns, limits their freedoms, and continues to bankrupt their futures.” ~Paul T. Conway, president of Generation Opportunity, Chief of Staff for the U.S. Department of Labor

”Today’s Supreme Court 5-to-4 decision upholding the individual mandate in ObamaCare was surprising. The court rejected the Obama Administration’s main argument that the individual mandate was constitutional based on the Commerce Clause. It rejected the administration’s second argument that the mandate was constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

“However, five justices, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority opinion, concluded that the mandate was constitutional under Congress’ power to tax. As Roberts wrote in his opinion, “Simply put, Congress may tax and spend.”

“That’s the problem in Washington, isn’t it? There’s already way too much spending, and ObamaCare won’t help that. And it is a huge tax increase — $500 billion over the next ten years.” Gary Bauer, American Values

[The previous post extolled the Supreme Court ruling as a victory for the health care needs of poor children. It may be presumed that they believe it is a victory for their families too. This is doubtful seeing many proponents for the poor also are proponents of state rights of the child trumps parental rights. In other words, families don’t count. However, the above comments lack any mention of children, only families, the blatant violation of individual liberty, and the undermining of the principles of federalism. I wonder if we can have cherished freedoms and the American dream and government dictating by force of law how we will achieve it. The above author(s) seem to think otherwise.]

Another Food Business Stops Advertisments on MTV’s Inappropriate Pro-Transgender Show

Kellogg’s is another company saying no to advertising on MTV’s inappropriate pro-transgender show Degrassi show which targets kids. MTV tried to convince mainstream advertisers that the content of Degrassi presented important teen issues in a responsible manner.

However, the super majority of mainstream companies stopped advertising on this show after Florida Family Association repeatedly informed them about the extreme content involving bizarre sexual role playing and drug abuse and overdose on the program.

The interactions of three Degrassi characters demonstrate one faction of the irresponsible content of this show. The transgender female to male character Adam is intimately interested in a bi-sexual female Fiona. However, Fiona is confused as to whether she is lesbian or bi-sexual while she interacts with Riley. Riley is an open homosexual and starting quarterback for the high school football team. The odds of this mix of sordid sexual deviations occurring in any high school at this high social clique level are a million to one. Yet, MTV targets our children and teens on their Teen Nick channel with this garbage numerous times a week and tries to sell it as programming that treats serious teen matters responsibly.

Florida Family Association has issued several email alerts regarding Degrassi over the past two years which have resulted in a large number of companies pulling off the program. The last email campaign identified Nationwide, Hewlett Packard, Verizon and Colgate as new advertisers and encouraged them to stop supporting Degrassi with their advertising dollars. All four companies, Nationwide, Hewlett Packard, Verizon and Colgate, have not advertised in the recent months.