Poll Question

Which do you prefer or enjoy reading the most:

a) Blog entries from other sites?

or

b) Personal write-ups from The Lamp/Robert Williams?

Please post your vote below as a reply/comment.

Time’s Running Out! Sign the PBA Petition Today.

In less than two weeks, on Nov. 8, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments supporting and opposing the federal ban on partial birth abortions. Then the nine justices will decide once and for all if the 2003 federal law banning partial-birth abortion is constitutional.
Click here to sign the CMC petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Partial-birth abortion is nothing more than the torture and murder of innocent babies. The Center for Moral Clarity wants to let the court know how strongly Americans oppose this procedure. Congress enacted the ban, and the President of the United States signed it into law. Now is the time for all of God’s people to make their voices heard.

This case is about public policy, and which branch of government is charged with crafting that policy for the nation. The Center for Moral Clarity firmly believes that American citizens, through their elected representatives in Congress, are the rightful vessels of power to determine public policy decisions. Part of CMC’s mission is to be a voice for Christians on such matters. That’s why CMC submitted a friend of the court brief supporting the ban. Here is an excerpt from that brief:

The American system of government is dependent upon the proper role of its branches. The Legislative body is the policy-making body, making difficult policy decisions for the country after extensive deliberation, debate, and analysis in representing the people. As the Founders of this country and centuries of American jurisprudence attest, the Legislature is in a much better position to serve this role than the Courts. In fact, when a court oversteps into policymaking, it directly restricts the liberty and freedom of The People and their representative body – Congress.

Partial-birth abortion is a deep public policy issue involving many complex issues of life and death, medicine, psychology, societal impacts, and increased callousness, among many other concerns. Congress can properly and fully consider such concerns, in public and through the exchange of ideas. It is their role.

Source:  www.centerformoralclarity.net

Justice Scalia Defends Life at ACLU Conference

U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia appeared Oct. 15 on a televised debate with Nadine Strossen, president of the American Civil Liberties Union. The discussion on the Constitution and how it speaks to civil liberties took place at the ACLU’s 2006 Membership Conference in Washington, D.C.

Considering that the ACLU and its left-leaning members have demonstrated an profound inability to comprehend the Constitution, Scalia was the perfect person to discuss issues of life and marriage – the foundation of American society.

During his 20 years on the high court, Scalia has frequently opposed the ACLU. He continued to offer Bible-believers hope by reaffirming his belief that abortion and gay rights were never intended to be a part of the Bill of Rights.

Seventy-year-old Scalia, who was appointed to the court in 1986 by President Reagan, said that is “why abortion and homosexual sodomy were criminal for 200 years.” He also argued that liberal judges in the past improperly established new political rights such as abortion.

“On controversial issues on stuff like homosexual rights, abortion, we debate with each other and persuade each other,” said Scalia, who consistently has been a strong voice for life. If this justice had his way, the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision establishing a woman’s right to abortion would be overturned. Hopefully, Scalia will be able to persuade the court’s two newest members, Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito, of this life-affirming conviction, especially in light of their upcoming decision on partial-birth abortion.

Source:  www.centerformoralclarity.net

Don’t Mope – Values Voters Have Hope

Two years ago, following the 2004 presidential election, the Center for Moral Clarity proclaimed the unprecedented voter turnout to be a victory for mainstream America. It was. Bible-believing voters clearly expressed that it was time to reclaim their lost heritage.

“That mission did not end with the 2004 election,” advises Pastor Rod Parsley, founder and president of the Center for Moral Clarity. “In 2004 values voters let their voices be heard; but that was just the beginning. Much remains to be done if people of faith seriously intend to remake our nation into the just, compassionate, noble society it was meant to be.”

Citizens of the United States have raised a great chorus of spiritual desperation. In the two years since the presidential election, questions of faith have continually dominated the public discourse. The outcome of general elections — like the one approaching on Nov. 7 — directly determines the answers to those questions.

“I know that the Church is the sleeping giant that can transform our nation,” Pastor Parsley adds.

Values voters made it clear two years ago that while the economy and national security were important concerns, moral issues took precedence when it came to determining the leadership and direction of our country – at the national, state and many local levels. Desire for that direction and leadership has neither wavered nor waned.

Polls and political analysts are predicting evangelical Christians will be no-shows on Election Day. They think people of faith are moping, feeling let-down and dejected. That’s hardly the case. By their very nature, people of faith have hope. Hope is a favorable, confident expectation based on faith in the unseen future. Hope requires a happy anticipation of good. To be sure, values voters are looking forward to Nov. 7.

Remember, values voters aren’t limited to the body of believers. Most Americans hold strong family-oriented values, whether they are Jewish, Catholic or even non-religious. Collectively, these voters can see the accomplishments of their efforts to impact the moral fabric of society. Internet Gambling laws have been enacted. Federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research has not expanded. One after the other, states are banning “faux marriages,” and their rights to do so have been upheld by the highest court in the nation.

With that momentum behind them, values voters across America won’t be sitting home this election. They’ll be lining up in masses at polling places because they have hope — hope that by fulfilling their duty of citizenship they will determine public policy and elect leaders who will embrace their values and share their passion for a culture of life.

Click here to view election issues in every state.

Source:  www.centerformoralclarity.net

What’s at Stake: Key Election Issues

 

Preserving Marriage Voters in eight states have a tremendous opportunity to strengthen the moral fiber of America, and the Center for Moral Clarity encourages every registered voter in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin to take full advantage of it.

“Finally, in these states the assault on marriage and family can come to an end, and they can join the 19 other states that have preserved the institution of marriage with a constitutional amendment,” said Pastor Rod Parsley, founder and president of the Center for Moral Clarity. “Now men and women – families – in eight more states can take a step toward America’s moral reformation. They can clearly and unequivocally define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. They can stand up and say enough is enough.”

Arizona Marriage Amendment
Proposition 107 would define marriage in Arizona’s Constitution as the union of one man and one woman. It also would bar governments from recognizing any alternative to marriage, such as civil unions or domestic partnerships, for couples both gay and straight. Click here to read Proposition 107 as it appears on the Nov. 7 ballot.

CMC Recommendation: Vote “Yes” on Arizona Proposition 107

Colorado Decides Marriage and Domestic Partners
Two initiatives on Colorado’s ballot address how the state will treat marriage. Amendment 43 would define marriage in the state Constitution as a union between one man and one woman. Colorado residents understand that anything short of a state constitutional amendment defending marriage this year will enable state judges and legislators to potentially redefine marriage – even against the will of the people.

Clergy across denominational lines and all religious expressions in Colorado have spoken up to say that any attack on the identity of marriage and the family undermines society itself. They have proclaimed that every effort to defend marriage and the family serves the common good. This is why Amendment 43 is so vitally important.
Click here to read Amendment 43 as it appears on the Nov. 7 ballot.

CMC Recommendation: Vote “Yes” on Colorado Amendment 43

Idaho
Ballot Initiative H.J.R. 2 establishes that marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union recognized in that state. Click here to read H.J.R. 2 as it appears on the Nov. 7 ballot.

CMC Recommendation: Vote “Yes” on Ballot Initiative H.J.R. 2

South Carolina
Amendment 1 provides that the institution of marriage in South Carolina consists only of the union between one man and one woman. If passed, no other domestic union would be considered valid and legal.

A resident of South Carolina who believes the biblical definition of marriage should prevail recently said, “If we allow marriage to mean anything in South Carolina, it will mean nothing.” This is one voice, but it reflects the views of people motivated to put the measure to a vote.
Click here to read South Carolina Amendment 1 as it appears on the Nov. 7 ballot.
CMC Recommendation: Vote “Yes” on South Carolina Amendment 1

South Dakota
Constitutional Amendment C is an amendment to Article XXI of the South Dakota Constitution relating to marriage. South Dakota statutes currently limit marriage to unions between a man and a woman. However, the State Constitution does not address marriage.

Amendment C would amend the State Constitution to allow and recognize marriage only between a man and a woman. It would also prohibit the Legislature from allowing or recognizing civil unions, domestic partnerships or other quasi-marital relationships between two or more persons regardless of sex.
Click here to read South Dakota Amendment C as it appears on the Nov. 7 ballot.
CMC Recommendation: Vote “Yes” on South Dakota Amendment C

Tennessee
Passage of Amendment 1 would define marriage as being between one man and one woman.
Click here to read Tennessee Amendment 1 as it appears on the Nov. 7 ballot.

CMC Recommendation: Vote “Yes” on Tennessee Amendment 1

Virginia
If approved by the voters, Question 1 on the Nov. 7 ballot would make a ban on same-sex marriage part of the Constitution of Virginia. The proposed amendment adds a definition of marriage as the “union between one man and one woman” to the Constitution’s Bill of Rights and prohibits Virginia and its counties, cities, and towns from creating or recognizing any legal status by any name which is comparable to marriage.
Click here to read Virginia Question 1 as it appears on the Nov. 7 ballot.

CMC Recommendation: Vote “Yes” on Virginia Question 1

Wisconsin
Question 1 on the Wisconsin ballot addresses the definition of marriage. Under present Wisconsin law, only a marriage between a husband and a wife is recognized as valid in this state. A husband is commonly defined as a man who is married to a woman, and a wife is commonly defined as a woman who is married to a man.

A “yes” vote would make the existing restriction on marriage as a union between a man and a woman part of the state constitution, and would prohibit any recognition of the validity of a marriage between persons other than one man and one woman.

Click here to read Wisconsin Question 1 as it appears on the Nov. 7 ballot.

CMC Recommendation: Vote “Yes” on Wisconsin Question 1

Cloning Missouri’s Amendment 2 Could Make Cloning a Constitutional Right

Amendment 2 has been called a Trojan horse because its wording hides the true purpose and effect of the constitutional change. This amendment merges cloning and human embryonic stem-cell research.

The multimillion-dollar public-relations campaign highlights potential cures from stem-cell research but obscures the extremely important distinctions between adult stem-cell research and embryonic stem-cell research, which cannot be performed without loss of life. Supporters of the amendment are misleading the voting public. At first glance, Amendment 2 appears to ban cloning, but the fine print actually could make cloning a constitutional right.

If this lengthy proposal passes, Amendment 2 would make it legal to farm eggs—a procedure that exploits poor women and places their health in jeopardy. Click here to read Amendment 2 as it appears on the Nov. 7 ballot.

CMC Recommendation: Vote “No” on Missouri’s Amendment 2

Gambling Ohio Voters Consider Slot Machines

Issue 3, a proposal called Learn and Earn would amend the state Constitution to:

Permit up to 31,500 slot machines at seven horse racing tracks and at two Cleveland non-track locations.

Permit expanded gaming in the four Cuyahoga County locations if approved by the county’s voters.

Distribute the revenues as follows:

55% to the slot and casino owners and operators.

30% to the Board of Regents for college scholarships and grants to eligible students and administration of the program. The remaining revenues would be divided among local governments, race tracks for purse money, gambling addiction services, and the administration of a gaming commission comprised of five members appointed by the governor and the majority legislative leaders.

Click here to read Issue 3 as it appears on the Nov. 7 ballot.

CMC Recommendation: Vote “No” on Ohio Issue 3

Abortion South Dakota’s Referred Law 6
In South Dakota, Referred Law 6 protects unborn life along with women’s health. The opponents of the law claim that it lacks provisions for: 1) rape and incest victims (note that less than 2% of abortions in South Dakota have been due to rape or incest), 2) covering medical care for women who have been assaulted, 3) won’t allow abortion to save the life of the mother, and 4) leaves doctors vulnerable to law suits when they are conducting legitimate medical procedures on women that result in a pre-born baby’s death. All four claims are false. The law protects women and doctors in the instances mentioned previously. More importantly, it recognizes that abortion hurts women. The South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion reviewed more 3,500 pages of scientific research, collected affidavits from 2,000 women who had undergone abortions, and interviewed 54 experts to conclude that abortion has lasting, devastating effects on women’s lives.

Click here to read the proposed amendment as it appears on the Nov. 7 ballot.

CMC Recommendation: Vote “Yes” on South Dakota’s Referred Law 6

Source:  www.centerformoralclarity.net