The Lamp

Where truth can be shared.

Archive for the ‘Anti-discrimination’ Category

Texas Protects Students From Secularists’ Harassment

Posted by thelamp on June 18, 2007

Texas students will have greater freedom to express their religious views on school campuses under the Religious Viewpoint Anti-Discrimination Act, a measure signed into law by Gov. Rick Perry on June 8.

Under the new law, religious beliefs expressed in homework, artwork and other assignments are to be judged by traditional academic standards. Students can’t be penalized or rewarded because of the religious content of their work.

Supporters say the measure is needed to protect students from censorship and school districts from lawsuits. There are plenty of cases to illustrate the degree of religious discrimination that exists in America’s public schools.

Perry earned the respect of many Christian parents in April when he acknowledged at a news conference that teens’ religious speech was quashed at public school. The governor cited examples of students being prohibited from wishing troops overseas a “Merry Christmas” or told they couldn’t distribute religious bracelets at recess.

Along with granting students freedom of religious expression, the new law also requires schools to establish a “limited public forum” at all school events in which students speak. Of course, schools will have to develop a neutral method for selecting pupils to speak at school events and graduation ceremonies, and officials must provide a written or oral disclaimer that the student’s speech was not endorsed by the school district.

It all seems like a lot of unnecessary machinations just to extend a basic right that’s already guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Still, Texas lawmakers should get a gold star for going the extra distance to make sure school is not a place where children are harassed by secularists who can’t respect Christian views.


Posted in Anti-Christian attitudes, Anti-discrimination, Center for Moral Clarity, christians, civil rights, CMC, Education, Equal Rights, Evangelism, freedom, Freedom of Religion, Mission / Evangelism, moral, moral values, Preaching, public school, Recent News & Events, Religion, Religion/Politics, Rod Parsley, school, texas | Leave a Comment »

Hate-Crimes Fraud Exposed

Posted by thelamp on April 18, 2007

As Congress once again ponders passage of H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, a disturbing revelation has come to light. According to investigators, the alleged incident that prompted re-introduction of the bill in the 110th Congress never actually happened. The Feb. 23 death that gay activists are using to justify the exaggerated need for broader enforcement of federal hate-crimes laws, in fact, was the result natural causes (“Medical examiner: Spinal disease killed Andrew Anthos“). So the possible erosion of Christians’ constitutional rights is not based on truth.

The Center for Moral Clarity has consistently argued that the hate-crimes bill, which has been before Congress numerous times over the past seven years, is a poor piece of legislation. Nevertheless, desperate to advance a failing agenda, the bill’s proponents have resorted to fabricating the need for the law, which is one more valid reason to fight it.

Click here to urge Congress to vote against H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act is linked to Anthos’ high-profile death. The 72-year-old homosexual reportedly met his demise after a phantom black man called him a derogatory name then struck him in the back of the head with a metal pipe. The “tragedy” so touched U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., that he delivered a moving speech on the Senate floor.

“We should condemn and act against the hate crimes that have plagued our nation and have had such a devastating impact on Andrew Anthos, and thousands of others and their families,” Levin said. “In addition, I hope that state governments will strengthen their own hate-crime statutes to combat this growing trend.”

If lawmakers really want meaningful legislation on this issue, the more fitting proposal would be to enact harsher punishment for people who lie about hate crimes. Gay activists are so eager to label offenses against their ranks as “hate crimes” they are distorting statistics in their favor. Such false reports end up in FBI data as well as impassioned congressional speeches. There’s no telling how many other “hate-crime” accounts are bogus.

The Concerned Women of America, the largest public policy women’s organization, has called for a federal investigation of fake hate-crime reports (“CWA to Feds: It’s Time to Investigate Fake “Hate Crimes” Reports“). CMC agrees that such fraud must be exposed.


Posted in Anti-Christian attitudes, Anti-discrimination, Center for Moral Clarity, Christianity, christians, CMC, crime, hate crime, hate crimes, Recent News & Events, Religion, Religion/Politics, Rod Parsley | Leave a Comment »

Let ERA Rest in Peace

Posted by thelamp on April 18, 2007

When fresh ideas are scarce, desperate folks resort to recycling old ones (“The Equal Rights Amendment: Wrong Then, Wrong Now“). The Equal Rights Amendment is one of those outdated concepts best left in the past, along with other discarded relics of the ’70s – burned bras, platform shoes and peace medallions.

Now that the United States has its first woman at the helm of the House of Representatives – and another gender defender holds a frighteningly realistic chance of occupying the White House in her own right – feminism once again seems to be in vogue. Know this: ERA has nothing to do with improving life for women. Instead, reviving the ERA is a thinly veiled attempt at setting public policy based on gender neutrality.

Women in America, however, are too wise to fall for this ruse and allow themselves to become pawns in the Left’s agenda to dismantle the distinctions God established between men and women.

To set the record straight, the ERA wasn’t exactly a new idea when Congress passed it in 1972. The proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provided that “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex,” had been languishing in the legislature since 1923. At the time of its passage, the public knew very little about the bill until the feminism movement embraced it as leverage for strengthening the status of women in society.

By the July 1982 ratification deadline, the amendment lacked support from the required 38 states (although 35 states did ratify the ERA, four states later rescinded their support). There’s a reason the Equal Rights Amendment faltered in 1923, and every subsequent year that it was introduced. There’s no need for it.

If the so-called “weaker sex” really needed a constitutional amendment to advance equality, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton – who leads the field of Democrats vying for the party’s presidential nomination – would not be where they are today.

As powerful as women have become in the political arena, there is still something that Pelosi and Clinton can’t do today: give their gay and lesbian supporters permission to “marry.” Such unions likely would be easier to legitimize in a nation where acknowledgement of a person’s gender is unconstitutional.

There are certain to be other unintended consequences. For example, two states already have ruled that equal-rights amendments in state constitutions justify state funding for abortion. If the pro-death movement wants something to kill, let it be the Equal Rights Amendment. Save babies and biblical marriage by letting the ERA rest in peace.


Posted in Abortion, Anti-Abortion, Anti-discrimination, Center for Moral Clarity, Children, CMC, congress, death, era, Recent News & Events, Republicans and Democrats, Rod Parsley | Leave a Comment »

Grandma Shouldn’t Go to Prison for Witnessing

Posted by thelamp on February 16, 2007

The arrests of two septuagenarian grandmothers in Pennsylvania for spreading the Gospel illustrate the flaw and danger in “hate crimes laws.” Their witnessing was considered illegal under a state statute, which advances a growing movement toward criminalizing the expression of a person’s thoughts.

Isn’t this the reason America’s Founding Fathers added the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

Click here to send an e-mail to Congress, asking your representatives and senators not to pass H.R. 254, the “hate crimes” bill.

Lynda Beckman, a 70-year-old grandmother of 10, and Arlene Elshinnawy, a 75-year-old grandmother of three, were among 11 people arrested for sharing their faith on a Philadelphia sidewalk. There is something fundamentally wrong with a criminal justice system that would send these women to prison for 47 years for sharing Christ’s message of love and salvation.

“There are valid reasons to oppose the concept of ‘hate crimes.’ By definition, the prosecution of a case with a hate-crime specification is an attempt to punish people for their thoughts,” said Pastor Rod Parsley, president and founder of the Center for Moral Clarity. “How, exactly, do prosecutors know what is in a perpetrator’s mind? By their actions. I’d argue that the government should stick to punishing behavior, rather than attempting to discern the thoughts of its citizens.”

The most ominous part of the proposed federal hate crimes law is a provision that would establish a protected class of victims for people who engage in homosexual behavior or their political agenda. Christians today should be wary of liberal activists’ attempts to expand the federal definition of “hate crimes” in this fashion. It’s a particularly dangerous and offensive proposal that threatens the religious liberties of every man and woman of faith in this nation.

The spirit of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires state governments to provide “the equal protection of the laws” to all citizens. Yet, hate-crime legislation contradicts this purpose by effectively giving some victims – including homosexuals – special treatment.

Keep in mind that prisons across the nation are overflowing. Society surely won’t be any safer if evangelists are locked away in the cells that should be reserved for murders and other violent offenders.

It’s scary to think that Pennsylvania’s prescribed punishment for witnessing in public could become status quo across America. This will be the result if Congress were to pass H.R. 254 – the “hate crimes” bill, which is said to be on the “fast track” in the House Judiciary Committee. During the 109th Congress, only the determination of leaders loyal to values voters prevented the bill from becoming federal law.

The threat posed to Christians by this legislation is not exaggerated. Consider what’s happening in California. In 2004, Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a similar bill. Under this new law, individuals can claim that someone expressing his or her deeply held beliefs – whether political or religious – presents an “intimidating” threat that is punishable. Penalties for violating the California law include criminal prosecution and fines up to $25,000, and get this: the fines are awarded to those bringing the accusation. This law is nothing less and nothing other than a form of legalized extortion!

Clearly, the intended result is to silence Christians. The gauntlet has been thrown before values voters once again. Once more Christians must rise to the challenge and defend their constitutional right to religious expression.

Click here to send an e-mail to Congress, asking your representatives and senators not to pass H.R. 254, the “hate crimes” bill.


Posted in Anti-Christian attitudes, Anti-discrimination, Center for Moral Clarity, Christian Hypocrisy, Christianity, CMC, Equal Rights, Evangelicals, Evangelism, God, hate crimes, moral, moral values, Recent News & Events, Religion, Religion/Politics, Rod Parsley, Separation of Church and State, Separation of Church and State--the First Amendment | 4 Comments »

America Must Have Faith

Posted by thelamp on February 16, 2007

Once again, Christianity is on trial in America. On Feb. 28, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Hein v. Freedom From Religion, a case that will determine the future of the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives.

In this case, atheists affiliated with the lawsuit-loving advocacy group Freedom From Religion are complaining about the use of money appropriated by Congress under Article I, section 8, to fund conferences that various executive-branch agencies hold to promote President Bush’s faith-based agenda. This is a program he created through a series of executive orders.

One order established an Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in the
White House. Other executive orders established centers for such projects in the various federal departments. In an effort to increase awareness of opportunities for collaborating with the government, the White House hosted conferences. The goal of these gatherings was to promote community organizations – whether secular or religious.

The conferences provided participants with information about the federal funding process, available funding opportunities and the requirements that come with the receipt of federal financial support. The meetings also created a forum to inform state and local officials about equal treatment regulations and other central elements of the Faith-Based and Community Initiative.

Religious and community groups have been assisting people in need for decades. The government has much to learn about providing social services from the men and women who lead and staff these noble organizations. Unfortunately, the federal government often has not been a willing partner to these groups.

Christians across the nation are grateful to President Bush for working to change this. Since he took office, thousands of grassroots organizations have received training in the federal grants process, and for the first time, hundreds of these groups have successfully competed for federal funds.

Rather than commending people of faith for their demonstrated contributions to America’s social fabric, members of Freedom From Religion are seeking to end those contributions. Their argument before the Supreme Court is based on a belief that the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution forbids the government from working in tandem with religious groups. This interpretation, however, misconstrues the Founding Fathers’ intent.

“The establishment clause requires the government to remain neutral where religion is concerned, not to treat religious entities punitively or in a discriminatory fashion,” said Pastor Rod Parsley. “Denying faith-based organizations the same opportunity to help communities and the people who populate them is clearly unequal treatment that turns the Founding Fathers’ intent on its ear.”

Federal courts have previously held that it is not a violation of the establishment clause for the government to redress discrimination against religious providers of social services.

It’s interesting that the case at hand focuses not on the grants awarded to faith-based groups, but rather on the conferences held to promote the availability of those grants. Since the president, not Congress, created the faith-based initiatives office, no legislation was passed authorizing money to host the conferences. Instead, White House officials used money from discretionary funds handed to them by Congress.

The Supreme Court’s ruling will determine whether individual citizens should be permitted to challenge such presidential actions because they disagree with them. Such a result would far exceed the intended purpose of the establishment clause, and values voters should pray that the justices don’t allow it.

It’s also worth noting that one of the defendants in this case is former Secretary of Education Rod Paige, whom the plaintiffs sued for having given a speech at one of the conferences. In that address, Paige said, “President Bush does this because he knows first-hand the power of faith to change lives – from the inside out. And the reason he knows this is because faith changed his life.”

Encouraging such lawsuits would place the judiciary in the role of managing and overseeing the executive branch, but such oversight undoubtedly is a function of Congress. Congress has not tried to curtail the faith-based initiatives program. It’s disturbing that Christianity’s detractors would disrupt the longstanding separation of powers balancing the respective branches of government. God willing, the Supreme Court will put an end to this nonsense.


Posted in Anti-Christian attitudes, Anti-discrimination, Center for Moral Clarity, Christianity, CMC, Equal Rights, Freedom of Religion, Political, Recent News & Events, Religion, Religion/Politics, Rod Parsley, Separation of Church and State, Separation of Church and State--the First Amendment, Spiritual, The Church | Leave a Comment »