Dan Gilgoff wrote a semi-related post on the same topic, commenting on the noticeable silence coming from Religious Right goups on the issue:
One week after Mark Sanford admitted to his affair with an Argentine woman—and a day after he called his mistress his "soul mate" and acknowledged further indiscretions—I'm struck by the total silence of pro-family groups.
The Family Research Council has been completely quiet on the South Carolina governor's affair. So has Concerned Women for America. Ditto for Focus on the Family.
The wall of silence is all the more striking given that 10 Palmetto State senators in Sanford's own party have called for him to step down. Does the pro-family movement burn up credibility if it looks the other way when Republican allies own up to extramarital affairs?
Today, Gilgoff writes that Focus on the Family took exception to his claim:
Focus on the Family's vice president of communications E-mails to protest my post about the silence of family values groups on Mark Sanford's affair. Focus, he says, has hardly kept quiet, responding to interview requests from Politico, the Washington Times, and a small New England newspaper.
Gilgoff wisely notes that these few examples are not particularly impressive "given what Focus's powerful media ministry is capable of," but I'd take it a step further by pointing out that I can find no article from Politico quoting the organization on Sanford's affair and the Washington Times quote doesn't exactly take what anyone would consider a particularly strong stand:
Focus on Family's Carrie Gordon Earll agreed.
"If anything, it hurts the nation," she said. "Any time you have an elected official who has a moral failure, I think it affects people's general confidence in leadership. Decisions have consequences, and Gov. Sanford is experiencing that today."
She said voters have one standard when it comes to marital fidelity, regardless of party. "Adultery is a moral failure, and I think the pubic doesn't have a stomach for it," she said.
Maybe Focus spoke out more forcefully in whatever small New Englad paper it is referring to, but if it did, I haven't seen it.
Until today, the only Religious Right leaders we had seen call for Sanford's resignation was Rob Schenck:
I humbly offer to you this pastoral advice: First, when these sins overtake us and ruin what is best of our lives, it is better to say less to the public and more to God and to those who have been injured by us. I urge you to now observe an extended period of public silence and address your interior spiritual life and the repair of your family. I also admonish you to immediately step down from public office. It has been my experience and that of many others in the ministry, that such turbulent and injurious human failings, such as this one in your life, require our complete and undivided attention.
And now this call has been echoed by Al Mohler of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary:
Governor Sanford is no King David, and the people of South Carolina -- as well as the watching world -- now observe the sad spectacle of a man who, while admitting to wrongdoing, shows no genuine repentance. As the Christian church has long recognized, true repentance is reflected in the "detestation of sin." This is a far cry from what we've heard from Governor Sanford.
If the governor is really serious about demonstrating character to his four sons, he should resign his office and give himself unreservedly to his wife and family. He must show his sons -- and all who have eyes to see -- how a man is led by the grace and mercy of God to hate his sin, rather than to love it. Until then, the governor must be understood to indulge himself in wistfulness for his affair and in a desperate determination to maintain his office. His remaining days in office are like a Greek tragedy unfolding into farce. The whole picture is just unspeakably sad.
Despite it claims to the contrary, aside from this one article on FOF's CitizenLink discussing efforts to voice support for Sanford's wife, Focus has been noticeably silent on the entire issue.
]]>Dan Gilgoff wrote a semi-related post on the same topic, commenting on the noticeable silence coming from Religious Right goups on the issue:
One week after Mark Sanford admitted to his affair with an Argentine woman—and a day after he called his mistress his "soul mate" and acknowledged further indiscretions—I'm struck by the total silence of pro-family groups.
The Family Research Council has been completely quiet on the South Carolina governor's affair. So has Concerned Women for America. Ditto for Focus on the Family.
The wall of silence is all the more striking given that 10 Palmetto State senators in Sanford's own party have called for him to step down. Does the pro-family movement burn up credibility if it looks the other way when Republican allies own up to extramarital affairs?
Today, Gilgoff writes that Focus on the Family took exception to his claim:
Focus on the Family's vice president of communications E-mails to protest my post about the silence of family values groups on Mark Sanford's affair. Focus, he says, has hardly kept quiet, responding to interview requests from Politico, the Washington Times, and a small New England newspaper.
Gilgoff wisely notes that these few examples are not particularly impressive "given what Focus's powerful media ministry is capable of," but I'd take it a step further by pointing out that I can find no article from Politico quoting the organization on Sanford's affair and the Washington Times quote doesn't exactly take what anyone would consider a particularly strong stand:
Focus on Family's Carrie Gordon Earll agreed.
"If anything, it hurts the nation," she said. "Any time you have an elected official who has a moral failure, I think it affects people's general confidence in leadership. Decisions have consequences, and Gov. Sanford is experiencing that today."
She said voters have one standard when it comes to marital fidelity, regardless of party. "Adultery is a moral failure, and I think the pubic doesn't have a stomach for it," she said.
Maybe Focus spoke out more forcefully in whatever small New Englad paper it is referring to, but if it did, I haven't seen it.
Until today, the only Religious Right leaders we had seen call for Sanford's resignation was Rob Schenck:
I humbly offer to you this pastoral advice: First, when these sins overtake us and ruin what is best of our lives, it is better to say less to the public and more to God and to those who have been injured by us. I urge you to now observe an extended period of public silence and address your interior spiritual life and the repair of your family. I also admonish you to immediately step down from public office. It has been my experience and that of many others in the ministry, that such turbulent and injurious human failings, such as this one in your life, require our complete and undivided attention.
And now this call has been echoed by Al Mohler of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary:
Governor Sanford is no King David, and the people of South Carolina -- as well as the watching world -- now observe the sad spectacle of a man who, while admitting to wrongdoing, shows no genuine repentance. As the Christian church has long recognized, true repentance is reflected in the "detestation of sin." This is a far cry from what we've heard from Governor Sanford.
If the governor is really serious about demonstrating character to his four sons, he should resign his office and give himself unreservedly to his wife and family. He must show his sons -- and all who have eyes to see -- how a man is led by the grace and mercy of God to hate his sin, rather than to love it. Until then, the governor must be understood to indulge himself in wistfulness for his affair and in a desperate determination to maintain his office. His remaining days in office are like a Greek tragedy unfolding into farce. The whole picture is just unspeakably sad.
Despite it claims to the contrary, aside from this one article on FOF's CitizenLink discussing efforts to voice support for Sanford's wife, Focus has been noticeably silent on the entire issue.
]]>He's also the founder of Move America Forward, whom we last saw linking up with a gaggle of other right-wing fringe groups for an ad campaign demanding the resignation of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano over the right-wing extremism report.
Well, Ron Moore reports that Kaloogian is back with this new Our Country Deserves Better PAC ad comparing President Obama to Hitler and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad while furthering just about every myth and conspiracy theory currently swirling around in the right-wing ether:
The only surprising thing about this ad is that they didn't manage to incorporate some mention of the fact that Obama was not even born in the United States and is ineligible to be president.
Maybe they are saving that for their next ad.
]]>
He's also the founder of Move America Forward, whom we last saw linking up with a gaggle of other right-wing fringe groups for an ad campaign demanding the resignation of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano over the right-wing extremism report.
Well, Ron Moore reports that Kaloogian is back with this new Our Country Deserves Better PAC ad comparing President Obama to Hitler and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad while furthering just about every myth and conspiracy theory currently swirling around in the right-wing ether:
The only surprising thing about this ad is that they didn't manage to incorporate some mention of the fact that Obama was not even born in the United States and is ineligible to be president.
Maybe they are saving that for their next ad.
]]>
This sort of thing is to be expected from the likes of Paul Cameron, but I have to admit that I am a little surprise to see it also being made by Maggie Gallagher in this column saying that she has a deep suspicion "of men who want to get close to children while depriving them of mothers":
Adoptions are government acts. What did his fellow social workers who approved this adoption know? What did they overlook? What questions didn't they ask because, well, he was "in the club" -- one of them?
Adoption is the way we strip a child of his or her natural protection -- his mom and dad -- and the government steps in to give this baby a new and better father or mother. Preferably both, I say. But I'm old-fashioned.
I have a bias in favor of mothers. I have a suspicion (let me be frank -- I'm not proud, but it's true) of men who want to get close to children while depriving them of mothers. Yes, let me be politically incorrect: On the whole I would prefer two mothers to none at all for a child.
How do children do who are raised by only fathers? Not that well, actually -- on average, I hasten to add.
Maybe gender doesn't matter at all. But maybe it does. Are we allowed to ask? To wonder?
Yes, I know, women fail babies too. But I would be happier if children were not deliberately deprived of mothers by other adults in their lives.
Gallagher proceeds to tie the issue to Michael Jackson, while seemingly fully aware that her questions are bound to generate controversy but vowing not to be silenced:
]]>I'm old-fashioned. Biased, even, but I already admitted that. I think fathers are immensely important to children -- unless and until the fathers indicate they do not want a mother in their child's life. Then I revert to an old-fashioned, even primitive, instinct: Babies ought to have mothers.
Will anyone run this column? Are we allowed to ask the question, "How in the world did this happen?" Could it be that the social work profession, committed to gay rights and family diversity, did not look very hard at Frank Lombard -- did not look beyond class and race and orientation to see if anything was amiss?
I do not know what went wrong in this instance. I do know that we should not let fear of homophobia prevent us from at least acknowledging the facts and asking questions.
This sort of thing is to be expected from the likes of Paul Cameron, but I have to admit that I am a little surprise to see it also being made by Maggie Gallagher in this column saying that she has a deep suspicion "of men who want to get close to children while depriving them of mothers":
Adoptions are government acts. What did his fellow social workers who approved this adoption know? What did they overlook? What questions didn't they ask because, well, he was "in the club" -- one of them?
Adoption is the way we strip a child of his or her natural protection -- his mom and dad -- and the government steps in to give this baby a new and better father or mother. Preferably both, I say. But I'm old-fashioned.
I have a bias in favor of mothers. I have a suspicion (let me be frank -- I'm not proud, but it's true) of men who want to get close to children while depriving them of mothers. Yes, let me be politically incorrect: On the whole I would prefer two mothers to none at all for a child.
How do children do who are raised by only fathers? Not that well, actually -- on average, I hasten to add.
Maybe gender doesn't matter at all. But maybe it does. Are we allowed to ask? To wonder?
Yes, I know, women fail babies too. But I would be happier if children were not deliberately deprived of mothers by other adults in their lives.
Gallagher proceeds to tie the issue to Michael Jackson, while seemingly fully aware that her questions are bound to generate controversy but vowing not to be silenced:
]]>I'm old-fashioned. Biased, even, but I already admitted that. I think fathers are immensely important to children -- unless and until the fathers indicate they do not want a mother in their child's life. Then I revert to an old-fashioned, even primitive, instinct: Babies ought to have mothers.
Will anyone run this column? Are we allowed to ask the question, "How in the world did this happen?" Could it be that the social work profession, committed to gay rights and family diversity, did not look very hard at Frank Lombard -- did not look beyond class and race and orientation to see if anything was amiss?
I do not know what went wrong in this instance. I do know that we should not let fear of homophobia prevent us from at least acknowledging the facts and asking questions.
I also noted that the effort was spearheaded by Rick Scarborough and Mat Staver and, though it has a fancy new name and includes several prominent groups, doesn't really seem to have an agenda that in any way differentiates it from any of the umbrella groups the Right has launched over the years.
Case in point: ValuesVoters.org.
Back in 2006, this coalition grew out of Vision America’s “War on Christian and Values Voters Conference” and had an equally strong roster of right-wing supporters, including Phyllis Schlafly, Alan Keyes, Lou Sheldon, Janet Folger, D. James Kennedy, and Rod Parsley. It even unveiled its own "ValuesVoters’ Contract with Congress: A Declaration of American Renewal" that reads a lot like the Freedom Federation's own Declaration of American Values ... with the key difference being that, at the time, Republicans still controlled Congress. Thus, while the last version was designed to be a "contract with Congress," this new version is a mere "declaration of values."
But beyond this contract, which never amounted to anything, the only thing the group managed to accomplish was the infamous Values Voter's Debate at which presidential no-shows like Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney were questioned in absentia and Mike Huckabee was proclaimed the "David among Jesse's sons."
After that, the coalition ceased to function and its website went dark ... until it essentially resurfaced as The Freedom Federation.
The amazing thing about this new incarnation is that it seems to be trying to present itself as some sort of nonpartisan "common ground" effort:
Calling themselves the Freedom Federation, the groups see an urgent need to collaborate to protect the Judeo-Christian values that they feel are being threatened.
Rather than approaching such issues as life, marriage, justice and politics as individual organizations, the Freedom Federation is hoping to get past the divisive rhetoric among Christians and tackle the issues together.
...
The groups at the launch hesitated to label the federation a purely conservative Christian one although most of the groups are of historic, orthodox faith-based traditions. They were looking to avoid the "left, right" language and instead place emphasis on the common core values that bring them together across ethnic, party and generational lines.
The coalition's desire to "avoid left-right language" ought to be relatively easy to accomplish since there is nothing even remotely "left" about it.
But as the participants explain, this is not some sort of effort by the Religious Right to find common ground with its political opponents, but rather an attempt to heal divisions within its own ranks and come together for the common purpose of saving the nation's "Judeo-Christian moral foundation":
]]>"The battles that we face today [and] the needs of the culture are too big for blacks to fight it by themselves, Hispanics to fight it by themselves or any one group to fight the battle by itself," said Bishop Harry Jackson, who leads the High Impact Leadership Coalition, at the launch of the federation on Tuesday.
"Today the most urgent issues as far as we're concerned ... can only be solved by a unified group that sees themselves first as Christians and secondarily [as] some other subculture," Jackson emphasized.
...
Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, told The Christian Post that the federation is not in reaction to the media's negative portrayal of Christians but rather in response to the shared core values they have.
Through ongoing communication with one another, the groups realized that they have more in common than they have differences and it became very apparent that they needed to work together, Staver explained.
"When you break down all the rhetoric and you get past all the labels and so forth, we begin to realize that we agree on a lot of these issues," Staver said.
The federation was also birthed out of a sense of urgency. The Judeo-Christian values, Staver said, have been weakened, injustices have increased, and the life and marriage issue as well as the role of government in people's lives have "crescendoed to a certain point where we are concerned with the need to protect these values."
I also noted that the effort was spearheaded by Rick Scarborough and Mat Staver and, though it has a fancy new name and includes several prominent groups, doesn't really seem to have an agenda that in any way differentiates it from any of the umbrella groups the Right has launched over the years.
Case in point: ValuesVoters.org.
Back in 2006, this coalition grew out of Vision America’s “War on Christian and Values Voters Conference” and had an equally strong roster of right-wing supporters, including Phyllis Schlafly, Alan Keyes, Lou Sheldon, Janet Folger, D. James Kennedy, and Rod Parsley. It even unveiled its own "ValuesVoters’ Contract with Congress: A Declaration of American Renewal" that reads a lot like the Freedom Federation's own Declaration of American Values ... with the key difference being that, at the time, Republicans still controlled Congress. Thus, while the last version was designed to be a "contract with Congress," this new version is a mere "declaration of values."
But beyond this contract, which never amounted to anything, the only thing the group managed to accomplish was the infamous Values Voter's Debate at which presidential no-shows like Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney were questioned in absentia and Mike Huckabee was proclaimed the "David among Jesse's sons."
After that, the coalition ceased to function and its website went dark ... until it essentially resurfaced as The Freedom Federation.
The amazing thing about this new incarnation is that it seems to be trying to present itself as some sort of nonpartisan "common ground" effort:
Calling themselves the Freedom Federation, the groups see an urgent need to collaborate to protect the Judeo-Christian values that they feel are being threatened.
Rather than approaching such issues as life, marriage, justice and politics as individual organizations, the Freedom Federation is hoping to get past the divisive rhetoric among Christians and tackle the issues together.
...
The groups at the launch hesitated to label the federation a purely conservative Christian one although most of the groups are of historic, orthodox faith-based traditions. They were looking to avoid the "left, right" language and instead place emphasis on the common core values that bring them together across ethnic, party and generational lines.
The coalition's desire to "avoid left-right language" ought to be relatively easy to accomplish since there is nothing even remotely "left" about it.
But as the participants explain, this is not some sort of effort by the Religious Right to find common ground with its political opponents, but rather an attempt to heal divisions within its own ranks and come together for the common purpose of saving the nation's "Judeo-Christian moral foundation":
]]>"The battles that we face today [and] the needs of the culture are too big for blacks to fight it by themselves, Hispanics to fight it by themselves or any one group to fight the battle by itself," said Bishop Harry Jackson, who leads the High Impact Leadership Coalition, at the launch of the federation on Tuesday.
"Today the most urgent issues as far as we're concerned ... can only be solved by a unified group that sees themselves first as Christians and secondarily [as] some other subculture," Jackson emphasized.
...
Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, told The Christian Post that the federation is not in reaction to the media's negative portrayal of Christians but rather in response to the shared core values they have.
Through ongoing communication with one another, the groups realized that they have more in common than they have differences and it became very apparent that they needed to work together, Staver explained.
"When you break down all the rhetoric and you get past all the labels and so forth, we begin to realize that we agree on a lot of these issues," Staver said.
The federation was also birthed out of a sense of urgency. The Judeo-Christian values, Staver said, have been weakened, injustices have increased, and the life and marriage issue as well as the role of government in people's lives have "crescendoed to a certain point where we are concerned with the need to protect these values."
And that group is the Focus on the Family affiliate and pre-eminent Religious Right organization in the state, the Palmetto Family Council:
Palmetto Family Council president Oran Smith says his group has not yet called on Sanford to resign, but is monitoring whether the governor is earnestly trying to reconcile with his wife.
"We really haven't reached a conclusion," Smith admits. "I'll have to say there is a lot of strong support on our board of directors for asking the governor to resign -- just simply because of some of the things that happened that were not related necessarily to the affair, but that involved him telling some untruths and trying to be evasive in a way that was not good to establish trust in the office of governor."
Just out of curiosity, what do you think the PFC's position would be were Sanford a Democrat?
But frankly, it's not surprising that the Palmetto Family Council would be reluctant to take a stand against Sanford (just like all the other Religious Right groups) considering that his endorsement of the organization is featured prominently on its website:
And, for those who are so inclined, here is an address Sanford delivered in which he gushingly praises the organization, though most of the speech is an introduction of former Rep. Steve Largent, whom Sanford credits for introducing him to C Street.
But just because the organization is unsure of what to do about the state's hypocritical governor doesn't mean they can't try to rally support for his wife, which it has done by setting up a webpage asking activists to send her messages of thanks and support:
]]>The people of South Carolina, particularly the wives and mothers of the Palmetto State, feel the hurt of this scandal most deeply, and refuse to let this moment pass without taking time to thank and encourage the one person who has been a rock in this crisis: First Lady Jennifer Sullivan Sanford.
Friends of Palmetto Family Council are saying loud and clear that Jenny Sanford deserves our thanks and our support ... By doing so, you can encourage her and thank her for her strength, her courage, her commitment to her family, and her example. Please help us collect as many signatures as possible to show how deeply the people of South Carolina (particularly wives and mothers) appreciate her and what she represents.
And that group is the Focus on the Family affiliate and pre-eminent Religious Right organization in the state, the Palmetto Family Council:
Palmetto Family Council president Oran Smith says his group has not yet called on Sanford to resign, but is monitoring whether the governor is earnestly trying to reconcile with his wife.
"We really haven't reached a conclusion," Smith admits. "I'll have to say there is a lot of strong support on our board of directors for asking the governor to resign -- just simply because of some of the things that happened that were not related necessarily to the affair, but that involved him telling some untruths and trying to be evasive in a way that was not good to establish trust in the office of governor."
Just out of curiosity, what do you think the PFC's position would be were Sanford a Democrat?
But frankly, it's not surprising that the Palmetto Family Council would be reluctant to take a stand against Sanford (just like all the other Religious Right groups) considering that his endorsement of the organization is featured prominently on its website:
And, for those who are so inclined, here is an address Sanford delivered in which he gushingly praises the organization, though most of the speech is an introduction of former Rep. Steve Largent, whom Sanford credits for introducing him to C Street.
But just because the organization is unsure of what to do about the state's hypocritical governor doesn't mean they can't try to rally support for his wife, which it has done by setting up a webpage asking activists to send her messages of thanks and support:
]]>The people of South Carolina, particularly the wives and mothers of the Palmetto State, feel the hurt of this scandal most deeply, and refuse to let this moment pass without taking time to thank and encourage the one person who has been a rock in this crisis: First Lady Jennifer Sullivan Sanford.
Friends of Palmetto Family Council are saying loud and clear that Jenny Sanford deserves our thanks and our support ... By doing so, you can encourage her and thank her for her strength, her courage, her commitment to her family, and her example. Please help us collect as many signatures as possible to show how deeply the people of South Carolina (particularly wives and mothers) appreciate her and what she represents.
Needless to say, it did not go well.
Kern insists that what gays really want is to destroy marriage so that they can legalize polygamy and pedophilia, saying that the push for gay marriage is just the beginning of the effort to "take away the Bible." She claims that the government is "being intolerant of those who hold Biblical views" and that what she merely wants is "laws that protect the most people in all situations" instead of passing laws that make legal "behavior that we know is harmful."
When Colmes asked her if she thinks that being gay ought to be illegal, Kern responds that "it used to be illegal" but insists that she doesn't want to put gays in jail ... but then insists that "we need to get back to our Judeo-Christian values where we have a sense of things that are right and wrong and we should not have a government that's out there promoting behaviors that we know are harmful."
Obviously, her insistence that "we need to get back to our Judeo-Christian values" harkens back to a time when gays were thrown in jail, so Colmes asked her again if she thinks that those who engage in gay sex should be arrested, to which she responds "no, unless they are doing that in some way that is illegal, like maybe trying to entice children."
Of course, trying to entice children is already illegal and will forever remain illegal, regardless of what happens on the issue of full equality for gays - but Kern is so obsessed with the notion that all gays are pedophiles that she just can't understand that obvious point.
]]>Needless to say, it did not go well.
Kern insists that what gays really want is to destroy marriage so that they can legalize polygamy and pedophilia, saying that the push for gay marriage is just the beginning of the effort to "take away the Bible." She claims that the government is "being intolerant of those who hold Biblical views" and that what she merely wants is "laws that protect the most people in all situations" instead of passing laws that make legal "behavior that we know is harmful."
When Colmes asked her if she thinks that being gay ought to be illegal, Kern responds that "it used to be illegal" but insists that she doesn't want to put gays in jail ... but then insists that "we need to get back to our Judeo-Christian values where we have a sense of things that are right and wrong and we should not have a government that's out there promoting behaviors that we know are harmful."
Obviously, her insistence that "we need to get back to our Judeo-Christian values" harkens back to a time when gays were thrown in jail, so Colmes asked her again if she thinks that those who engage in gay sex should be arrested, to which she responds "no, unless they are doing that in some way that is illegal, like maybe trying to entice children."
Of course, trying to entice children is already illegal and will forever remain illegal, regardless of what happens on the issue of full equality for gays - but Kern is so obsessed with the notion that all gays are pedophiles that she just can't understand that obvious point.
]]>
In a suit recently filed by the Indiana chapter of the ACLU, Muslim inmates have asked that they be able to practice their faith dutifully, which in turn, means small group prayer five times a day.
Louay Safi, director of leadership development with the Plainfield-based Islamic Society of North American, said Muslims try to pray in groups whenever possible.
"Muhammad said there is a much greater reward for people who pray in congregation than those who pray individually," he said.
As of now, the prison only allows the Muslim inmates to worship as a group one hour per week, though inmates are allowed to congregate for card games or to watch television multiple times a day.
To Staver, however, there is no reason the inmates should be allowed to worship in small groups, especially since a group of Muslim inmates congregating is an obvious security threat:
The lawsuit, however, in this particular case says that they are allowed to pray as a group only just one hour a week. The fact is that there is no constitutional right to assembly as a group five times a day.
But I think in the situation with regards to the Muslims, there is clearly a security issue at risk here.
While there may not be an explicit constitutional right to prayer five times a day, there isn't an explicit constitutional right to monthly baptisms at a prison either; that is because they both fall under laws protecting an inmate's right to worship. Staver must be getting forgetful, because not too long ago his Liberty Counsel threatened a New Mexico jail with a lawsuit unless monthly baptisms were allowed for inmates wishing to convert to Christianity.
Liberty Counsel sent a demand letter to the warden and the county explaining that failure to allow the baptisms violated the inmates' constitutional right to free exercise of religion.
Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented, "With the high rate of recidivism, prisons are in desperate need of better ways to rehabilitate inmates and make them productive citizens. Christian conversion and faith play a key role in transforming broken lives into new beginnings. Rather than throwing up roadblocks to Christian faith and worship, prisons should welcome the positive changes that the Christian conversion brings and the role that baptism plays in the inmates making a public confession of burying the old life and being resurrected to a new life in Jesus Christ."
So, in other words, Staver believes firmly in an inmate's right to religious freedom; the religion just has to be Christianity.
]]>In a suit recently filed by the Indiana chapter of the ACLU, Muslim inmates have asked that they be able to practice their faith dutifully, which in turn, means small group prayer five times a day.
Louay Safi, director of leadership development with the Plainfield-based Islamic Society of North American, said Muslims try to pray in groups whenever possible.
"Muhammad said there is a much greater reward for people who pray in congregation than those who pray individually," he said.
As of now, the prison only allows the Muslim inmates to worship as a group one hour per week, though inmates are allowed to congregate for card games or to watch television multiple times a day.
To Staver, however, there is no reason the inmates should be allowed to worship in small groups, especially since a group of Muslim inmates congregating is an obvious security threat:
The lawsuit, however, in this particular case says that they are allowed to pray as a group only just one hour a week. The fact is that there is no constitutional right to assembly as a group five times a day.
But I think in the situation with regards to the Muslims, there is clearly a security issue at risk here.
While there may not be an explicit constitutional right to prayer five times a day, there isn't an explicit constitutional right to monthly baptisms at a prison either; that is because they both fall under laws protecting an inmate's right to worship. Staver must be getting forgetful, because not too long ago his Liberty Counsel threatened a New Mexico jail with a lawsuit unless monthly baptisms were allowed for inmates wishing to convert to Christianity.
Liberty Counsel sent a demand letter to the warden and the county explaining that failure to allow the baptisms violated the inmates' constitutional right to free exercise of religion.
Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented, "With the high rate of recidivism, prisons are in desperate need of better ways to rehabilitate inmates and make them productive citizens. Christian conversion and faith play a key role in transforming broken lives into new beginnings. Rather than throwing up roadblocks to Christian faith and worship, prisons should welcome the positive changes that the Christian conversion brings and the role that baptism plays in the inmates making a public confession of burying the old life and being resurrected to a new life in Jesus Christ."
So, in other words, Staver believes firmly in an inmate's right to religious freedom; the religion just has to be Christianity.
]]>Of course, they don't seem to have any new ideas or desire to change their agenda in any way, but in last few months have seen a flurry of new groups popping up designed to fill some unseen void that has been apparently responsible for their current predicament.
In the last few months we seen the arrival of the Faith and Freedom Institute, which was followed by Ralph Reed's Faith and Freedom Coalition, while Newt Gingrich was unveiling his Renewing American Leadership effort, and Lou Engle was announcing his Call to Action.
And now we come to find out via Pam that pretty much every Religious Right group has joined together under the umbrella of something called The Freedom Federation, incuding Renewing American Leadership and Call to Action, which were just recently created - so now you have two new groups created specifically to fill this void joining a new coalition effort ... designed to fill this very same void:
Press Conference to discuss the formation of the Freedom Federation and its purpose.
The Freedom Federation is a new and unique federation of some of the largest multi-ethnic and transgenerational faith-based organizations in the country committed to plan, strategize, and work together on common interests within the Judeo-Christian tradition to mobilize their grassroots constituencies and to communicate faith and values to the religious, social, cultural, and policymaking institutions.
-- American Association of Christian Counselors
-- American Family Association
-- Americans for Prosperity
-- Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny (BOND)
-- Campaign for Working Families
-- Catholic Online
-- Concerned Women for America
-- Conservative Action Project
-- Eagle Forum
-- Exodus International
-- Faith and Action
-- Family Research Council
-- High Impact Leadership
-- Liberty Alliance Action
-- Liberty Counsel
-- Liberty University
-- Life Education and Resource Network (LEARN)
-- Marc Nuttle
-- Morning Star Ministries
-- National Clergy Council
-- National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference
-- Renewing American Leadership
-- Strang Communications
-- Teen Mania
-- The Call to Action
-- Traditional Values Coalition
-- Vision America
Wow - did they put this coalition together by going through our list of right-wing organizations and simply inviting all the groups and individuals we write about most frequently to join? Sorry, Christian Anti-Defamation Commission - if only we had written about you a few more times, maybe you would have been deemed worthy of inclusion in this ground-breaking new effort by the Religious Right ... to do whatever it is this new organization is going to do.
Honestly, what purpose can this possibly serve? Are the Council for National Policy and the Arlington Group somehow lacking and so these groups decided that what they really needed was yet another coalition to carry out the same work?
Anyway, this effort seems to be organized by Rick Scarborough ... or at least he is the first to send out a press release trying to take credit for it:
Today, representatives of some of America's largest faith-based groups gathered in the nation's capital to announce that they will organize and mobilize their grassroots constituencies in a common cause.
At the National Press Club, Vision America President Pastor Rick Scarborough joined other conservative leaders, including Mat Staver, dean of Liberty University Law School and the Federation's convener, to formally announce the formation of the Freedom Federation.
The Federation encompasses individuals of different races, faiths and backgrounds who are committed to the preservation of freedom and American values, founded on the Judeo-Christian tradition. The Freedom Federation is not a separate organization, but an association of like-minded national organizations with large and unique religious and political constituencies.
...
Scarborough commented: "These organizations represent some of the nation's largest constituencies of youth, Hispanics, African-Americans, women, pastors and churches, who are uniting to defend a tradition increasingly under attack."
The Freedom Federation is committed to defending and extending core values expressed in the Declaration of American Values, the organization's founding document. These include the right to life, the institution of marriage, parental rights, religious liberty, an environment free of pornography and indecency, the right to property, freedom from excessive taxation, and national sovereignty. The statement is posted on the Vision America website at www.visionamerica.us.
And here is their Declaration of American Values, which they vow to protect with their lives:
]]>We the people of the United States of America, at this crucial time in history, do hereby affirm the core consensus values which form the basis of America’s greatness, that all men and women from every race and ethnicity are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We adhere to the rule of law embodied in the Constitution of the United States and to the principles of liberty on which America was founded. In order to maintain the blessings of liberty and justice for ourselves and our posterity, and recognizing that personal responsibility is the basis of our self-governing Nation, we declare our allegiance –
1. To secure the sanctity of human life by affirming the dignity of and right to life for the disabled, the ill, the aged, the poor, the disadvantaged, and for the unborn from the moment of conception. Every person is made in the image of God, and it is the responsibility and duty of all individuals and communities of faith to extend the hand of loving compassion to care for those in poverty and distress.
2. To secure our national interest in the institution of marriage and family by embracing the union of one man and one woman as the sole form of legitimate marriage and the proper basis of family.
3. To secure the fundamental rights of parents to the care, custody, and control of their children regarding their upbringing and education.
4. To secure the free exercise of religion for all people, including the freedom to acknowledge God through our public institutions and other modes of public expression and the freedom of religious conscience without coercion by penalty or force of law.
5. To secure the moral dignity of each person, acknowledging that obscenity, pornography, and indecency debase our communities, harm our families, and undermine morality and respect. Therefore, we promote enactment and enforcement of laws to protect decency and morality.
6. To secure the right to own, possess and manage private property without arbitrary interference from government, while acknowledging the necessity of maintaining a proper and balanced care and stewardship of the environment and natural resources for the health and safety of our families.
7. To secure the individual right to own, possess, and use firearms as central to the preservation of peace and liberty.
8. To secure a system of checks and balances between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches within both state and federal governments, so that no one branch – particularly the judiciary – usurps the authority of the other two, and to maintain the constitutional principles of federalism which divide power between the state and federal governments.
9. To secure our national sovereignty and domestic tranquility by maintaining a strong military; establishing and maintaining secure national borders; participating in international and diplomatic affairs without ceding authority to foreign powers that diminish or interfere with our unalienable rights; and being mindful of our history as a nation of immigrants, promoting immigration policies that observe the rule of law and are just, fair, swift, and foster national unity.
10. To secure a system of fair taxes that are not punitive against the institution of marriage or family and are not progressive in nature, and within a limited government framework, to encourage economic opportunity, free enterprise, and free market competition.
We hereby pledge our Names, our Lives and our Sacred Honor to this Declaration of American Values.
Of course, they don't seem to have any new ideas or desire to change their agenda in any way, but in last few months have seen a flurry of new groups popping up designed to fill some unseen void that has been apparently responsible for their current predicament.
In the last few months we seen the arrival of the Faith and Freedom Institute, which was followed by Ralph Reed's Faith and Freedom Coalition, while Newt Gingrich was unveiling his Renewing American Leadership effort, and Lou Engle was announcing his Call to Action.
And now we come to find out via Pam that pretty much every Religious Right group has joined together under the umbrella of something called The Freedom Federation, incuding Renewing American Leadership and Call to Action, which were just recently created - so now you have two new groups created specifically to fill this void joining a new coalition effort ... designed to fill this very same void:
Press Conference to discuss the formation of the Freedom Federation and its purpose.
The Freedom Federation is a new and unique federation of some of the largest multi-ethnic and transgenerational faith-based organizations in the country committed to plan, strategize, and work together on common interests within the Judeo-Christian tradition to mobilize their grassroots constituencies and to communicate faith and values to the religious, social, cultural, and policymaking institutions.
-- American Association of Christian Counselors
-- American Family Association
-- Americans for Prosperity
-- Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny (BOND)
-- Campaign for Working Families
-- Catholic Online
-- Concerned Women for America
-- Conservative Action Project
-- Eagle Forum
-- Exodus International
-- Faith and Action
-- Family Research Council
-- High Impact Leadership
-- Liberty Alliance Action
-- Liberty Counsel
-- Liberty University
-- Life Education and Resource Network (LEARN)
-- Marc Nuttle
-- Morning Star Ministries
-- National Clergy Council
-- National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference
-- Renewing American Leadership
-- Strang Communications
-- Teen Mania
-- The Call to Action
-- Traditional Values Coalition
-- Vision America
Wow - did they put this coalition together by going through our list of right-wing organizations and simply inviting all the groups and individuals we write about most frequently to join? Sorry, Christian Anti-Defamation Commission - if only we had written about you a few more times, maybe you would have been deemed worthy of inclusion in this ground-breaking new effort by the Religious Right ... to do whatever it is this new organization is going to do.
Honestly, what purpose can this possibly serve? Are the Council for National Policy and the Arlington Group somehow lacking and so these groups decided that what they really needed was yet another coalition to carry out the same work?
Anyway, this effort seems to be organized by Rick Scarborough ... or at least he is the first to send out a press release trying to take credit for it:
Today, representatives of some of America's largest faith-based groups gathered in the nation's capital to announce that they will organize and mobilize their grassroots constituencies in a common cause.
At the National Press Club, Vision America President Pastor Rick Scarborough joined other conservative leaders, including Mat Staver, dean of Liberty University Law School and the Federation's convener, to formally announce the formation of the Freedom Federation.
The Federation encompasses individuals of different races, faiths and backgrounds who are committed to the preservation of freedom and American values, founded on the Judeo-Christian tradition. The Freedom Federation is not a separate organization, but an association of like-minded national organizations with large and unique religious and political constituencies.
...
Scarborough commented: "These organizations represent some of the nation's largest constituencies of youth, Hispanics, African-Americans, women, pastors and churches, who are uniting to defend a tradition increasingly under attack."
The Freedom Federation is committed to defending and extending core values expressed in the Declaration of American Values, the organization's founding document. These include the right to life, the institution of marriage, parental rights, religious liberty, an environment free of pornography and indecency, the right to property, freedom from excessive taxation, and national sovereignty. The statement is posted on the Vision America website at www.visionamerica.us.
And here is their Declaration of American Values, which they vow to protect with their lives:
]]>We the people of the United States of America, at this crucial time in history, do hereby affirm the core consensus values which form the basis of America’s greatness, that all men and women from every race and ethnicity are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We adhere to the rule of law embodied in the Constitution of the United States and to the principles of liberty on which America was founded. In order to maintain the blessings of liberty and justice for ourselves and our posterity, and recognizing that personal responsibility is the basis of our self-governing Nation, we declare our allegiance –
1. To secure the sanctity of human life by affirming the dignity of and right to life for the disabled, the ill, the aged, the poor, the disadvantaged, and for the unborn from the moment of conception. Every person is made in the image of God, and it is the responsibility and duty of all individuals and communities of faith to extend the hand of loving compassion to care for those in poverty and distress.
2. To secure our national interest in the institution of marriage and family by embracing the union of one man and one woman as the sole form of legitimate marriage and the proper basis of family.
3. To secure the fundamental rights of parents to the care, custody, and control of their children regarding their upbringing and education.
4. To secure the free exercise of religion for all people, including the freedom to acknowledge God through our public institutions and other modes of public expression and the freedom of religious conscience without coercion by penalty or force of law.
5. To secure the moral dignity of each person, acknowledging that obscenity, pornography, and indecency debase our communities, harm our families, and undermine morality and respect. Therefore, we promote enactment and enforcement of laws to protect decency and morality.
6. To secure the right to own, possess and manage private property without arbitrary interference from government, while acknowledging the necessity of maintaining a proper and balanced care and stewardship of the environment and natural resources for the health and safety of our families.
7. To secure the individual right to own, possess, and use firearms as central to the preservation of peace and liberty.
8. To secure a system of checks and balances between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches within both state and federal governments, so that no one branch – particularly the judiciary – usurps the authority of the other two, and to maintain the constitutional principles of federalism which divide power between the state and federal governments.
9. To secure our national sovereignty and domestic tranquility by maintaining a strong military; establishing and maintaining secure national borders; participating in international and diplomatic affairs without ceding authority to foreign powers that diminish or interfere with our unalienable rights; and being mindful of our history as a nation of immigrants, promoting immigration policies that observe the rule of law and are just, fair, swift, and foster national unity.
10. To secure a system of fair taxes that are not punitive against the institution of marriage or family and are not progressive in nature, and within a limited government framework, to encourage economic opportunity, free enterprise, and free market competition.
We hereby pledge our Names, our Lives and our Sacred Honor to this Declaration of American Values.
But instead of taking my word for it, let's let Broadway's interim pastor Charlie Johnson explain it (via Box Turtle Bulletin):
]]>We explained before the Committee that Broadway has never entertained any formal order of business before the congregational body that constitutes an endorsement of homosexual behavior. We further explained that church membership and congregational service in no way denotes ratification of the behavior of the individual holding that membership and performing that service.
Discussions were candid and thorough. More conservative voices on the Executive Committee wanted Broadway to do something clearly not required by the SBC Constitution: take formal congregational action to condemn homosexual behavior. This extraordinary measure has not been required of any other SBC church. It would be unprecedented and unauthorized. Such requirement repeatedly surfaced in our deliberations, and each time the Executive Committee backed off it.
...
The breakdown came when those advocating the more rigorous constitutional test won the day. It became clear several weeks ago from the Executive Committee that Broadway would have to implement measures to identify, isolate, and distinguish our gay and lesbian members from the rest of the congregation in order to be found in friendly cooperation. Of course, conscience, congregational autonomy, and common decency prohibit us from doing so.
Now, it appears that the constitutional language as presently stated in Article III is not sufficient. It is not enough for cooperating Southern Baptist churches simply to take no action to affirm homosexual behavior. They must now take formal action explicitly to disapprove such behavior.
Every Southern Baptist church of any size has homosexual members. These friends pray with us, sing with us, give with us, serve with us, and take the Body and Blood of Christ at the table of the Lord with us. Will the test imposed upon Broadway by the denomination now be required of all the churches?
The recommendation to disfellowship Broadway was unanimously passed in the Executive Committee. It was approved by the Convention without discussion. Not even one lone solitary dissenting voice. Such uniformity of thought and silence of conscience means that the SBC remains Baptist in name only.
The moral legalism inherent in the Southern Baptist Convention's decision indicates the spiritual disease infecting and destroying our Baptist body today. Instead of focusing our energies of love on a lonely and hurting world, we are obsessed with endlessly parsing out arcane legalities designed to assert our own moral purity and superiority.
It is a sound and fury signifying nothing.
But instead of taking my word for it, let's let Broadway's interim pastor Charlie Johnson explain it (via Box Turtle Bulletin):
]]>We explained before the Committee that Broadway has never entertained any formal order of business before the congregational body that constitutes an endorsement of homosexual behavior. We further explained that church membership and congregational service in no way denotes ratification of the behavior of the individual holding that membership and performing that service.
Discussions were candid and thorough. More conservative voices on the Executive Committee wanted Broadway to do something clearly not required by the SBC Constitution: take formal congregational action to condemn homosexual behavior. This extraordinary measure has not been required of any other SBC church. It would be unprecedented and unauthorized. Such requirement repeatedly surfaced in our deliberations, and each time the Executive Committee backed off it.
...
The breakdown came when those advocating the more rigorous constitutional test won the day. It became clear several weeks ago from the Executive Committee that Broadway would have to implement measures to identify, isolate, and distinguish our gay and lesbian members from the rest of the congregation in order to be found in friendly cooperation. Of course, conscience, congregational autonomy, and common decency prohibit us from doing so.
Now, it appears that the constitutional language as presently stated in Article III is not sufficient. It is not enough for cooperating Southern Baptist churches simply to take no action to affirm homosexual behavior. They must now take formal action explicitly to disapprove such behavior.
Every Southern Baptist church of any size has homosexual members. These friends pray with us, sing with us, give with us, serve with us, and take the Body and Blood of Christ at the table of the Lord with us. Will the test imposed upon Broadway by the denomination now be required of all the churches?
The recommendation to disfellowship Broadway was unanimously passed in the Executive Committee. It was approved by the Convention without discussion. Not even one lone solitary dissenting voice. Such uniformity of thought and silence of conscience means that the SBC remains Baptist in name only.
The moral legalism inherent in the Southern Baptist Convention's decision indicates the spiritual disease infecting and destroying our Baptist body today. Instead of focusing our energies of love on a lonely and hurting world, we are obsessed with endlessly parsing out arcane legalities designed to assert our own moral purity and superiority.
It is a sound and fury signifying nothing.