Christians Are the Real Victims

Last week, U. S. Rep John Conyers, D-Mich., re-introduced the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act in Congress, but this irrational proposal must never reach the president’s desk. The Center for Moral Clarity is calling upon Christians coast to coast to vehemently oppose this legislation. Otherwise, be prepared to promptly relinquish your constitutional rights.

Click here to send a letter urging Congress to vote AGAINST the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

The Hate Crimes Prevention Act would expand the federal definition of hate crimes to include violence against a person because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity. Anyone who commits an act of violence should be punished. Toward that end, laws across America appropriately castigate murderers and other belligerent brutes. Frankly, as a deterrent to violent behavior, hate-crimes laws are both redundant and unnecessary.

Despite the hue and cry from homosexual political activists, this legislation is not needed to penalize attacks motivated by bias against gays, because the root crimes are already punishable under the laws of the land. This legislation is purely symbolic. Unfortunately, it doesn’t symbolize a consensus to make America a kinder, gentler nation.

Instead, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act represents the intense culture war between those who trust the Bible as a manual for life and those who reject it. This is a battle from which God’s children cannot retreat.

“Homosexuals are anything but happy and carefree. According to virtually every scientific, medical and sociological study of the homosexual community, the everyday world of the American homosexual is a very unhappy world,” said Pastor Rod Parsley. “And it’s not just the emotional health of gays that suffers. Given that their sexual practices and lifestyle choices make health and hygiene a practical impossibility, ill health is an escapable part of the gay lifestyle. Therefore, the life expectancy of gays is substantially lower than that of heterosexuals.”

The late Oliver Wendell Holmes, one of the most respected justices in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court, once said, “The very aim and end of our institutions is just this: that we may think what we like and say what we think.” To the Christian mind, the standards for what is “right” and “wrong” have been divinely set. Expressing that belief is – and always should be – a constitutionally protected right. Don’t relinquish it without a fight!
 
Click here to send a letter urging Congress to vote AGAINST the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Source:  www.centerformoralclarity.net

Interspecies Cloning is Udderly Wrong

Roughly a dozen years ago, an animal biologist at Michigan State University inserted his own DNA into a cow’s egg. Although Jose Cibelli’s foolish attempt to play God didn’t spawn a new life form, the failed sci-fi experiment did give birth to a controversial technique known today as interspecies cloning.

Predictably, scientists have grown discontented with standing at the threshold of a “brave new world.” At least three teams of British researchers are eager to make the leap into the land of biological engineering and reproductive technology. The real-life ramifications of “advancing” science are certain to be more frightening than anything Aldous Huxley dreamed up for his futuristic novel.

Life on the cutting edge isn’t limited to Brits experimenting with bovine eggs. Esmail Zanjani, a professor at the University of Nevada, reportedly has created the world’s first human-sheep chimera – which has the body of a sheep and half-human organs. The new animal has 15 percent human cells and 85 percent animal cells, and its evolution brings the prospect of animal organs being transplanted into humans one step closer.

Either way, injecting adult human cells into a sheep’s fetus or a cow’s egg, this new wave of research should do more than reignite debate over the morality of such experiments; it should jar Christians from their current state of ambivalence. Interspecies cloning is not a step forward. There is no doubt that genetic engineering defiles human dignity and promises to change life as we know it, which is hardly the gratitude God deserves for creating mankind and giving humans dominion over animals. Why would anyone even think about altering God’s unique, perfect design or his wonderful handiwork?

Scientists point to the lack of an ample supply of human eggs for embryonic stem-cell research as the catalyst for expanding cloning between humans and animals. The idea is to take DNA from patients sick with diseases like Alzheimer’s and fuse it with cow eggs that have had all their genetic material removed. Scientists expect the human DNA to trick the eggs into thinking they’re pregnant, and the development of life would begin. After about five days of growth, the cloned embryos would be destroyed and the stem cells extracted.

Cloning and human embryonic stem-cell research are morally wrong. Furthermore, interspecies cloning is the most repugnant and reprehensible act that can occur in a petri dish. Biologically blending man and beast is not a matter for intellectual, academic debate. This is the Church’s call to action.

“We are living in a day of almost unimaginable scientific possibilities. Yet as a moral culture, we have never been in a weaker position to manage those possibilities responsibly,” said Pastor Rod Parsley. “We must face the disturbing fact that technology is racing forward so quickly, policy makers and so-called bioethicists can’t possibly keep up.”

Properly understood, science is a natural extension of Christian faith. However, the faithful must be engaged with the broader culture to maintain the biblical influence as science progresses. When the church retreats into its religious enclaves, militant scientists are allowed to go on their wayward course undeterred. Christians must preserve the sanctity of life by guiding technology and medical research with moral discipline.

source:  www.centerformoralclarity.net

A Dubious Honor

Usually, being the first to accomplish a task or make a mark in a particular field is worthy of accolades. Not so in the case of U.S. Rep. Pete Stark. Last week, the California Democrat became the first congressman in American history to publicly acknowledge that he is an atheist. Secular groups applauded the news, of course. The announcement even prompted the American Humanist Association to place an ad in the Washington Post recognizing Stark as the highest-ranking elected official to ever disavow the Lord.

Instead of being commended for his honest declaration, however, Stark should be the recipient of an onslaught of sympathy cards. Indeed, being the highest-ranking nonbeliever is a dubious distinction. Those who know God and have experienced His love for the world – which He created – should pray for the congressman to have an encounter with God so that he, too, can experience love and everlasting life.

Roy Speckhardt, the American Humanist Association’s executive director, had this to say, “With Stark’s courageous public announcement of his nontheism, it is our hope that he will become an inspiration for others who have hidden their conclusions for far too long.”

It’s disheartening enough that anyone would deny God, but it does not bode well for America’s future when a publicly elected official steps forward with such a revelation. Consider why Stark made his atheistic beliefs known. An association of eight humanist and atheist groups known as the Secular Coalition for America offered $1,000 to the person who could name the “highest-level atheist, agnostic, humanist or any other kind of nontheist currently holding elected public office in the United States.”

An adage has it that there is security in numbers. One has stood to be counted. Know this, others will follow, and collectively they will intensify the assault on the nation’s biblically based policies. Stark, who is chairman of the health subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee, said as much. “I look forward to working with the Secular Coalition to stop the promotion of narrow religious beliefs in science, marriage contracts, the military and the provision of social services,” Stark said last week in a prepared statement.

Stark has served in Congress since 1973.

Source:  www.centerformoralclarity.net

A Half-Hearted Apology

For more than a decade, Japan has rejected claims from women seeking compensation from the government for being forced into prostitution during World War II. This week, however, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe attempted to make amends and offered an apology.

Unfortunately, using the euphemism “comfort women” to describe mothers, sisters and daughters degraded by sexual servitude minimizes the atrocity committed against them. As a result, the “apology” comes across as disingenuous.

The abduction of thousands of Asian women for use as prostitutes during World War II has been a point of tension between Japan and its neighbors for decades. The crimes were perpetrated primarily against women from Korea and China. So their acceptance of the atonement should be what matters most. In the United States and abroad, Asian women are skeptical about the motivation, as well as the prime minister’s words.

Far too often, women are the callous victims of brutality during times of war. It’s hard for mere words offered generations later to repair the damage. For many observers, Japan’s act of contrition was more of an attempt to appease American politicians than genuine regret for misdeeds against Asian women.

More than 70,000 Korean Americans recently signed a petition in support of U.S. legislation sponsored by Rep. Mike Honda, D-Calif. Honda’s measure before Congress doesn’t mince words. The non-binding resolution recommended by Honda, who is of Asian heritage, urges the Japanese government to offer an official apology for the forced sexual enslavement of Asian women during WWII.

The speculation is that Abe’s apology might be a move to stop Honda’s resolution from passing. If the regret for violating women’s rights is legitimate, though, neither the prime minister nor the Japanese Parliament will be content to let the ill feelings fester a day longer. Abe’s statements should be made official by the Japanese Parliament, which should then vote to pay compensation to the families of the victims.

Source:  www.centerformoralclarity.net

Well Worth the Price

Is it selling a baby, or buying a life? Legislators in Texas are debating that question as they consider an idea introduced by state Sen. Dan Patrick, a Houston Republican. Patrick is sponsoring legislation that would pay women $500 for choosing to place an unwanted child up for adoption rather than having an abortion.

Offering an incentive to save a life is a good idea, albeit a bit impractical. Any effort to reduce – if not eliminate – abortion should be explored. Realistically, though, a woman facing a crisis pregnancy may not have the resources, such as access to prenatal care, to safely bring her baby into the world. In such a case, nine months may be a long time to wait for the $500 incentive.

Still, Patrick deserves credit for exploring an option previously not considered. Not every plan needs to save thousands of lives. Saving just one life is meaningful, too. If Texans are willing to pay to save a life, it’s well worth the price.

Source:  www.centerformoralclarity.net