Playing the Lesser Part

“Put yourself aside, and help others get ahead.”                           Php 2:3 TM

Frances Green was an elderly lady living on a pension. Every year she sent a dollar to the Republican National Convention. One day she received an invitation to meet President Reagan. Not realizing the RSVP should include a generous donation, she scraped up every cent she had and took a four-day train ride across America. She slept sitting up because she couldn’t afford a sleeper. When she arrived at the White House and found her name wasn’t on the guest list, she was heartbroken. Overhearing her story, a Ford Motor executive contacted a presidential aide and got clearance to give Frances a tour and introduce her to the president the next day. But the following morning there was a military uprising overseas and the president was in high-level meetings. When Frances showed up at the White House the executive showed her around and walked her past the Oval Office hoping she’d at least get a glimpse of the president. As they passed he looked up, stood up from his desk and announced, “Frances! Those darn computers fouled up again! If I’d known you were coming I’d have come out to get you myself!” The little woman from California had nothing to give the president that day, but there was something he could give her, so he made time in his busy schedule.

Paul says, “Don’t push your way to the front…Put yourself aside, and help others get ahead.” In other words, be willing to play second fiddle. Remind yourself that God sees, God evaluates, and God rewards. So, today go out of your way to help somebody.

http://theencouragingword.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/playing-the-lesser-part/

Sticking Up for Jesus

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6

Recently, I read a disturbing quote from a pastor of a large church in California. He said, “I used to believe that we should ask Muslims to accept Christ as their Savior. But I don’t believe that any more. I’ve sensed the presence of God with Muslims, and I’ve come to believe that it’s wrong to try to talk them into becoming Christians.”

I don’t know why he changed his mind, but caving in on what Jesus has clearly said, is a betrayal of Jesus Himself. Jesus came to make a way to God by removing the one barrier that blocks everyone’s path to God—the barrier of sin. This meant that He had to die in our place to pay the price of sin. Without His sacrifice, there is no other way. Let’s face it; if there were other ways to God, then He didn’t need to die. It’s ludicrous to believe that His Father would send Him through the agony of the cross if it were only another religious option. To deny that He is the way is to deny Jesus.

But let’s get personal about this. While it’s easy to “be out” on a West Coast pastor who has bailed on the message of Jesus, we ourselves find it hard to tell people at the water cooler that we believe He is the only way. There are probably a lot of reasons why we tend to fudge on the issue: keeping culturally respectable, not appearing to be to the right of Attila the Hun, or just not wanting to seem intolerant or bigoted all stack up as pretty good reasons to duck when the subject is raised.

But at some point, we have to make up our mind about whether any of these pressures are worth betraying Jesus for.

Judas did it for 30 pieces of silver (Matthew 27:1-5). And, to be candid about it, he had some pretty good reasons to bail. If he had stuck it out with the unpopular Jesus, he would suffer (as Jesus had told His disciples), be thrown out of synagogues, and perhaps even die for the cause. On the other hand, betraying Christ would bring him acceptance from the “powers that be,” safety, and security by aligning himself with the big guys—and some extra cash besides. Being like Judas is always an option. But let’s remember that he was no hero. When was the last time you heard of parents naming their newborn son Judas?

All I’m trying to say is that sticking up for Jesus against heavy odds is always tough. But it’s always right. Perhaps we have misunderstood the nature of being a follower of Jesus: We are to take up our cross and follow Him. Paying a price for Him comes into clear perspective when we remember the phenomenal price He paid for us.

I’m not asking you to be obnoxious about it, just humbly clear. And by the way, is there anything compelling about your life that would back up the words that Jesus is the way? Are you wonderfully different because Jesus is the way? Do people at the water cooler know that you are trustworthy, forgiving, fair and honest, joyful, and quick to speak a good word about others?

It’s always easier to speak up for Jesus when we have already shown up for Jesus.

YOUR JOURNEY…

• What attitudes and actions in your life back up the claims of Jesus?
• What’s your price? Write down any circumstances that might tempt you to act like Judas. Pray and ask God for the courage to stand up for Jesus when it would be easier to betray Him.
• How could you humbly yet clearly articulate Jesus Christ’s claim to be the only way to God? Write out a statement of about 25 words that clearly explains why He needed to die for all. Be sure to tell those who question you that He has already made a way for them to have a relationship with God.

http://getmorestrength.org/daily/sticking-up-for-jesus/

One Consequence of Same-Sex Marriage By Jim Daly , CP Guest Contributor

By the end of this month it’s likely to be legal for children in California to have three  parents.

As of now, the state’s current law only allows two parents per child, which  is both the historical standard and the common sense one.

So why aren’t two enough anymore?

Same-sex marriage.

Children of lesbian couples may have two “mothers,” but it’s obviously  impossible for a child to be conceived without a father. The same is true for  homosexual men; every child is born of a mother, even if the male couple deems  her simply utilitarian in nature.

California state Senator Mark Leno introduced the legislation expanding  parenthood earlier this year when he learned of the unfortunate plight of a  young girl named M.C. The little girl’s biological mother is a lesbian who is  “married” to another woman. The state recognizes the two women as M.C’s parents,  but the youngster suddenly found herself in an even more precarious position  when her biological mother went to prison and her other “mother” was  hospitalized.

In a day she went from having two “mothers” to having none, at least  practically speaking.

The circumstances are very disturbing. The biological mother went to jail  because her boyfriend stabbed the other “mother.”

The biological father requested custody but was denied because of  California’s two-parent policy. Instead, the child became a ward of the state.  Even though the two women were otherwise disposed, the law still views them as  the child’s legitimate parents.

The sordid details notwithstanding, the consequences of this law designed to  allow for multiple parents are far reaching and tragic.

I fear for the child who will soon be pulled in every direction, their  loyalties challenged and their sense of morality further corrupted and  confused.

This is what happens when the gender of a parent no longer matters, when culture sees the role of mothers and fathers as  interchangeable or even irrelevant rather than sacred and distinct.

A mother cannot be a father and a father cannot be a mother.

California Senator Mark Leno may be on the verge of a legislative victory,  but like regularly happens with attempts to redefine God‘s design of the family,  when radicals win, it’s the children who ultimately lose.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/one-consequence-of-same-sex-marriage-81619/#hbHUOYkClMRoEG62.99

Chik-fil-A-Quake: What the Media Didn’t Say

If the media reports an earthquake was a breeze in the forest, did the earth still move? I’m not sure TownHall Finance is the natural venue for that question, but I’m also not sure why the Denver Post—my local paper—put a significant political and cultural event on page umpty-something, in the business section.

If you didn’t see it with your own eyes, you might have missed something big last week. Under fire by gay activists and their media amplifiers, Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy unapologetically confirmed he supports the biblical definition of family as he understands it. This modern heresy quickly went viral. Reaction was harsh. Big city mayors and councilors channeled Al Capone with a badge: “Don’t file no stinking permit applications in our town, Chick-fil-A!” Pundits nodded righteously. But, what happened next didn’t follow the script.

Backlash welled up, not just from social conservatives, but fiscal conservatives and libertarians, outraged that politicians would trample the First Amendment, brandishing political litmus tests for the right to do business. Social media and web commentary buzzed with rebellion. A great day of fried chicken and Chick-fil-A appreciation was proposed.

---

 

---

Last Wednesday, I met friends in north suburban Denver at about 11 to beat the rush. Fail. The lot was packed, the drive-thru and building tightly coiled by a boa of cars, tail extending to the street. Inside was standing room only, with a switch-back line that triggered post-Disney traumatic stress. Yet, amid the din, cheer was high. The besieged staff moved helpfully and efficiently, and the line shuffled like a smooth deck of cards.

The friendly mob cycled through, holding steady in size the hour I was there. Judging scientifically by anecdotal Facebook posts, it stayed that way all day and evening, at every Chick-fil-A around Denver, throughout the state, and across the nation. The outpouring was unforeseen, the magnitude unimaginable. The chain’s coffers got a short- and probably long-term boost.

After 20 years around politics, I’ve seen how activists can generate pretty good ink just from a press release and 50 people on the Capitol steps in front of a borrowed guitar amplifier. I also know how hard groups sometimes have to hustle to assemble their 50. So I was eager to see what the media would make of this human tide.

Thursday’s Denver Post business page answered: “Coloradans voice their opinions on Chick-fil-A; Outlets flooded by supporters and opponents.” Not even close. Without space to fully deconstruct, I’ll acknowledge the article did say the crowds were large and the protesters few. But the headline and details caught maybe half the story and missed the essence. A few thoughts, on the event and the coverage:

Especially without any central organizer or major media promotion, the numbers were staggering, and broadly replicated across the country. If a protest warrants a story, this event deserves a Pulitzer-nominated multi-part investigative series.

It wasn’t a forum about the First Amendment, Cathy’s marriage views, or even political bullying. Whatever their motivation, the crowd arrived as a smiling, hungry lunch and dinner crew. It was a massive show of implicit support and protest, for reasons that deserve examination.

My table included a friend who supports civil unions, one for gay marriage, and one who thinks government should get out of the marriage business, letting people and churches make their own agreeable arrangements. We didn’t discuss the fourth person’s view, or anyone else’s that day, because lunch was don’t ask don’t tell.

It’s clear many diners intended to rebuke bullying politicians and the un-American idea that approved political views are required for permission to be in business. Does this resentment go further, and reflect anger at transgressed lines between private and public management, corporate and government bedfellows sharing money, policies, and favors?  Is that resentment building toward a November eruptian?

Another strong positive is rejection of a vicious double standard: One side airs views through a respectful media, while others get vilified for different opinions. It’s breathtaking that liberals seek to redefine fundamental cultural concepts and muzzle the opposition; those who question or disagree should be attacked and cowed into silence, even while they speak for majority opinion. That happened with California’s ballot measure on marriage, as more than one financial supporter was hounded from high profile jobs. Wednesday was a salutary fist at that ugly trend.

Finally, what to make of the subdued coverage. Did our scribes not recognize an  important cultural moment? Because it doesn’t interest them or flatter their vision? That’s the fish-don’t-know-they’re-wet view of media bias. Or, do they know full well and work carefully to contain the story? Of course, either way, the effect is the same.

Shawn Mitchell

Shawn Mitchell was elected to Senate District 23 in the Colorado General Assembly in November of 2004. Shawn is an attorney at private practice in Denver and Adams County.

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/shawnmitchell/2012/08/06/chikfilaquake_what_the_media_didnt_say/page/full/

A California Senator’s Attack on Parental Rights

Two months ago, I wrote, “As of today, it is legal in California to give hormone blockers to an 11 year-old boy in order to delay the onset of puberty, but it could soon be illegal for a 17 year-old with unwanted same-sex attractions to receive professional counseling, even with parental consent.” Now, California Senator Ted Lieu, has removed any doubt as to why he introduced Senate Bill 1172: “The attack on parental rights is exactly the whole point of the bill because we don’t want to let parents harm their children.”

This is an absolute outrage, and every parent in California needs to contact their senators and urge them to vote against this ridiculous and wrong-headed bill.

Senator Lieu, who is married with children, said “he got the idea for the bill after seeing a television special last fall about adults who had gone through this kind of therapy as children. He said he was struck by their description of traumatic experiences, confusion, depression and suicidal thoughts.” And so Lieu has now appointed himself the guardian of the children of California, the arbiter of what is best for them, and the ward over the parents of his state.

If this is not an example of egregious government overreach, nothing is.

For those unfamiliar with SB 1172, it is an unprecedented bill that “would ban sexual orientation conversion therapy for California minors—even if they or their parents want it.” It would also make it very difficult for an adult with unwanted same-sex attractions to receive professional counseling, since the counselor would have to inform the client that the counseling does not work and that it could cause harm. How encouraging!

The bill has the enthusiastic support of gay activist organizations and gay politicians, and it is making its way through the Legislature with almost total Democratic backing. Thankfully, there are some politicians who are exposing the absurd nature of the bill. As reported by Kim Reyes in the Orange County Register, Assemblyman Donald Wagner explained that, “The default of this Legislature is to assume authority over parents by getting invested in issues of medicine, which is something it is not qualified to do, especially regarding matters of medical decisions made between parents and children.”

“The Legislature has no business telling parents how to raise their kids, Wagner said, nor is it appropriate for a bunch of legislators without medical training to judge the effectiveness of a particular therapy. ‘I’m not a doctor,’ the assemblyman said.”

Reyes also noted that “three experts consulted by the Orange County Register said they were not aware of the California State Legislature ever outlawing a specific kind of therapy.” (I can only imagine what kinds of professional therapies take place in California, all without legal interference.) And Marc Mason, administrative manager at the Board of Behavioral Sciences, which licenses counselors and therapists in California, stated that “Therapies themselves are not regulated. We regulate individuals or licensees, and we do not have the ability or statutory authority to ban a certain type of therapy.”

Even the leftleft-leaning, pro-gay-activist, American Psychological Association (APA) “‘does not approve or ban’ therapies,” according to Rhea Farberman, an APA spokeswoman. “The association has said that sexual re-orientation efforts are not effective, but hasn’t designated such therapy as an ethical violation.”

Lieu, however, states that, “The facts show that you cannot change someone’s sexual orientation, and when you try to do that, it harms them. The only (legitimate study showing) that highly-motivated homosexuals can change their orientation was conducted by Robert Spitzer (a renowned psychiatrist). He retracted his study this past year, noting that there was no scientific reasoning to back up his findings. So, there is no factual proof that this type of therapy works.”

This, of course, is nonsense. First, there are thousands of former homosexuals who testify to significant or even complete change in their sexual orientation, be it through religious conversion or professional therapy or both. In this age of so-called tolerance and inclusion, why are they ignored or mocked or ridiculed? Why should we believe the testimonies of gays who tried to change but couldn’t while refusing to believe the testimonies of gays who did change? Second, there are actually decades of professional studies documenting the possibility of change (for a detailed discussion, see my book A Queer Thing Happened to America). Third, Spitzer did not retract his study, nor did he discover that his findings were scientifically inaccurate after further research. He simply apologized for the study after suffering years of ugly and unrelenting attack from gay activists and their allies.

But all this is secondary to the larger matter at hand, namely the extraordinary attempt of the government of California to tell parents and their children that, regardless of their spiritual convictions, moral convictions, social convictions, or scientific convictions, minors with unwanted same-sex attractions cannot receive professional counseling to help them change, even with parental consent.

To repeat the words of Senator Lieu, “The attack on parental rights is exactly the whole point of the bill.” Parents of California, are you going to let this bill pass on your watch?

Michael Brown

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and has served as a professor at a number of seminaries. He hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire, and his latest book is The Real Kosher Jesus.

http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2012/08/02/a_california_senators_attack_on_parental_rights/page/full/

 

California’s Scorched Earth Policy Toward Marriage

From the moment the push to redefine marriage began, the most militant of the would-be redefiners deployed a “scorched earth policy” toward marriage to achieve their goals. In other words, they proved willing not just to alter, but also to destroy marriage and the familyin order to establish conditions where they could reconstruct marriage – and all of society – according to their own designs.

And part of this scorched earth policy, as we’re now seeing it in California, is the effort to recognize more than two parents for children.

That’s right—SB 1476, a bill that gives judges the power to pretend that a child could have “three or more” parents—has made it through the state Senate and is now with the Assembly. And once a child has two mothers and a dad or two dads and mother, how small is the step to allowing the two moms to “marry” or the two dads to “marry”?

According to the The Sacramento Bee, three parent relationships that would be protected under SB 1476 include:

A family in which a man began dating a woman while she was pregnant, then raised that child with her for seven years. The youth also had a parental relationship with the biological father. 

A same-sex couple who asked a close male friend to help them conceive, then decided that all three would raise the child.

A divorce in which a woman and her second husband were the legal parents of a child, but the biological father maintained close ties as well.

 

In looking at these various scenarios, it doesn’t take long to see that there are numerous ways for a child to end up with three parents. (But why stop at three?)

Seriously, by the time you add up all the same-sex options, together with divorces and remarries and boyfriends and girlfriends in between, children raised in an SB 1476 world would  not even know what “mom” or “dad” means.

And once it goes that far, it will have reached the point of critical mass for which same-sex “marriage” advocates are hoping. There will be such chaos that they can just step in and say, “Jane and Sally are already both mothers to little Johnny in this house. If we’re going to recognize them as mothers, why not allow them to ‘marry’ so little Johnny can have parents who are ‘married’ like everyone else’s?” And if the “two moms” must be “married,” how can we stop there and deny “marriage” to every other conceivable confederation of enumerable adults who have some connection to a child?

Where slopes were once slippery, we now have the steepest of cliffs.

In California, pro-chaos legislators are using a scorched earth policy to set up the opportunity for reconstructing marriage after their own image. And if they prove successful in getting SB 1476 signed into law, the reconstruction they seek won’t be far behind.

Austin Nimocks

Austin R. Nimocks is senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund (www.telladf.org), a legal alliance employing a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

http://townhall.com/columnists/austinnimocks/2012/07/08/californias_scorched_earth_policy_toward_marriage/page/full/

California Law Would Not Be in Kids’ ‘Best Interest’

When she was a precocious preschooler, the daughter of my cousin was famous for begging to sit in the front seat of the family car. As the youngest of four children, she was unlikely to have that privilege, even if she was large enough to safely sit up front. She begged anyway.

The story goes that after repeatedly being denied the chance to sit in the front, the little girl buckled herself into her booster seat in the back, smugly declaring, “This is the front seat.”

Which proves that even a 4-year-old can execute the “When all else fails, redefine the issue” strategy.

This is the avenue being pursued by California state Sen. Mark Leno, who has introduced legislation in the Golden State to allow a child to have more than two parents.

Reflecting the changing nature of families, Mr. Leno believes that adults in nontraditional families — such as when there is a gay couple as well as a biological father or mother — ought to have parental rights conferred on all the parties engaged in the business of “parenting.”

Referring to the 1950s TV show about the quintessential American family, the San Francisco Democrat is quoted as saying, “The bill brings California into the 21st century, recognizing that there are more than Ozzie and Harriet families today.”

Mr. Leno is an outspoken proponent of gay marriage, which the voters of California have resoundingly and repeatedly rejected. Now it appears he’s going around the will of the citizens to confer at least one of the “rights” associated with gay marriage — the “right” to be designated as a parent to a child with whom one has no biological connection.

In a tasteless nod to pragmatism, Mr. Leno thinks this bill is a good idea for, among other reasons, its ability to assign financial responsibility for children to an even larger pool of people than just the two responsible adults known as a “mother” and “father.” He envisions kids having access to more child support, Social Security benefits and health insurance.

Apparently what he does not envision are the gruesome and protracted custody battles and fights over who must (or mustn’t) pay child support, fund a college education, foot the bill for a wedding, or even pay attention when said (confused and understandably screwed up) child lands in jail or rehab or on a therapist’s couch.

Most troubling, Mr. Leno seeks to redefine “parenthood” in a fundamentally different way, eliminating old-fashioned designations of “mother” and “father” in favor of the gender-neutral term “parent,” something he presumes anyone can be to another person with whom they form a special emotional bond.

The irony in this bill is that Mr. Leno believes it somehow serves children’s “best interests,” something he wants California courts to determine.

But Mr. Leno ignores the irrefutable proof: If we want to serve the best interests of children, we’d work harder to raise them in intact two-parent families consisting of one mother and one father.

At the risk of stating an obvious, if unpopular, fact: Children of “traditional” families do better by every measurable standard. They achieve more educationally, they engage in fewer risky behaviors, they get more sleep, eat more vegetables, read more books, enjoy better health, and have greater potential for success as adults than do children raised in any other family structure.

Apologies to those who simply aren’t able to provide the benefits of a two-parent home, for whatever reasons. Life throws curves and we all do the best we can with what God sends our way.

But redefining what it is to be a “parent” will no more make someone a mother or father than will sitting straight and tall in your booster seat put you up front where you’d prefer to be sitting.

Words have meaning, and no matter how they redefine it in California, “mom” and “dad” mean something unique and irreplaceable.

Marybeth Hicks

Marybeth Hicks is the author of Don’t Let the Kids Drink the Kool-Aid: Confronting the Left’s Assault on Our Families, Faith, and Freedom (Regnery Publishers, 2011).

http://townhall.com/columnists/marybethhicks/2012/07/05/california_law_would_not_be_in_kids_best_interest/page/full/

Obama’s Gay Marriage Contradiction

Last month, when President Obama finally endorsed gay marriage after years of equivocation, he emphasized that he still thinks states should be free to address the issue as they see fit. Since many voters strongly oppose gay marriage, it is clear why Obama advocates a federalist approach to the question. But it is not clear that he logically can.

Obama’s inconsistency is illustrated by two cases involving gay marriage that the Supreme Court could hear during its next term. Two weeks ago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit overturned a law that prohibits federal recognition of state-licensed gay marriages, and last week the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit declined to reconsider a case in which it ruled against California’s ban on gay marriage.

The 1st Circuit case involves Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which the Obama administration stopped defending last year after concluding it is unconstitutional. During the same May 9 ABC News interview in which he declared that “same-sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama said DOMA “tried to federalize what has historically been state law.”

But Obama does not argue that DOMA violates the 10th Amendment by impermissibly intruding on a power that the Constitution reserves to the states. Instead, he says the law violates the guarantee of equal protection implicit in the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

As Attorney General Eric Holder explained in a February 2011 letter, “The President and I have concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny” under the Due Process Clause and that DOMA’s distinction between heterosexual and homosexual couples fails that test. If so, it is hard to see how the same distinction at the state level could pass muster under the 14th Amendment, which says “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

“If you believe the matter should be left to the states,” Stanford law professor Michael McConnell recently told The Washington Post, “that means you think the Constitution permits the states to take a different view. I don’t see how that can be squared with Attorney General Holder’s claim.”

In fact, Holder and Obama implicitly have staked out a stronger position against state bans on gay marriage than the 9th Circuit did. Under the heightened scrutiny favored by Obama, the government must show that a legal distinction based on sexual orientation is “substantially related to an important government objective.”

The 9th Circuit, by contrast, applied the “rational basis” test, the standard typically used in equal protection cases that do not involve a fundamental right or a “suspect class” such as race. Under that standard, the government need only show that the challenged law “bears a rational relation to a legitimate end.”

The appeals court concluded that Proposition 8, a 2008 ballot initiative that amended the state constitution to reverse a California Supreme Court decision allowing gay couples to marry, failed even this highly deferential test because it did not accomplish anything that was plausibly related to its ostensible goals.

Under California’s “domestic partnership” law, gay couples retain the same rights as straight couples, except for the right to call their relationship a marriage. Since Proposition 8′s sole effect was to remove that label, the court reasoned, its only justification was to mark gay marriages as morally inferior — an illegitimate end under the Equal Protection Clause.

This analysis is unlikely to apply elsewhere because California’s combination of a strong domestic partnership law with a constitutional amendment rescinding gay marriage rights is unusual, if not unique. But many other states’ gay marriage bans could be vulnerable under the heightened scrutiny that Obama applied to DOMA.

Obama may wish to avoid the implications of his constitutional logic until after the presidential election. But if the Supreme Court agrees to hear the California case this fall and asks the solicitor general to weigh in, that may not be possible.

Jacob Sullum

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine and a contributing columnist on Townhall.com.

http://townhall.com/columnists/jacobsullum/2012/06/13/obamas_gay_marriage_contradiction/page/full/

 

Culture Challenge of the Week: Parents Barred From Influence Over Sex

Parenting is tougher than it used to be.  And if California is any indication, parents may soon have to fight for the right to exercise any influence–not to mention authority–over their children’s sexual behaviors.

Last week news spread of a unique partnership between Planned Parenthood and the Los Angeles Unified School District–Planned Parenthood now runs a “health” clinic on the school grounds of Roosevelt High School, serving mostly teens from low-income, Latino families. Most of the teen visits to the Planned Parenthood health clinic last year were for, you guessed it, “reproductive services” paid for by a government program, of course. While the Planned Parenthood clinic apparently doesn’t do abortions on school premises, it takes little imagination to envision the direction their supposedly non-judgmental counseling will take for girls who do become pregnant.

And you can be sure that Roosevelt High School’s teens will continue to get pregnant. Why delay or avoid sexual intercourse, when peer sex-counselors (trained by Planned Parenthood) sit at your lunch table, the pill can be picked up between classes, and STD meds are available just down the hall? Planned Parenthood’s on-campus presence ensures a steady diet of contraceptive pills, patches, and shots delivered to teens as young as 13, without their parents’ knowledge or consent.

Mom and dad send their kids to school to learn reading, writing, and arithmetic.  But the school day now is likely to include sexual how-to’s and the contraceptive props to make it all possible-all before lunch. And parents will have no clue what’s being said or delivered, and no power to prevent it.

In fact, California law already ensures that teens can receive contraceptives and abortions without parental notice. But Planned Parenthood’s on-the-premises availability means that parents will have even less chance to protect their children from the influence of sex and abortion peddlers. Plus, the abortion provider’s tie-in with the school sanctions the Planned Parenthood brand of sexual morality and stamps government approval on the pro-abortion message. All in the name of protecting teens.

What’s next, I wonder? On-campus “safe rooms” for lunch or after-school trysts?

After all, the kids are going to do it anyway. Why force them into the back seats of cars or empty apartments, where youth dating violence is more likely to occur? Surely student safety would demand that schools provide clean, accessible, “youth-friendly,” environments where students can exercise their sexual rights, free from parental snooping or control. It’s one stop shopping, too: pick up condoms on the way in or the “morning after pill” on the way out. Bet it would reduce the drop-out rate, too–Who knew school could be this much fun?

How to Save Your Family: Take the Reins in Sex Ed

Parents are right to resist government efforts to shape our kids’ sexual perspectives. California’s model–bringing Planned Parenthood literally inside the school walls–is likely to be replicated elsewhere as governments flounder about seeking ways to reduce teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Their approach will fail: Planned Parenthood has strong financial incentives to stoke demand for their services–contraceptives, abortions, and STD treatments-by promoting sex without moral context.

It’s up to us to take the reins of our child’s sex education, to deliver the right messages about sex.

When was the last time you engaged your child in a conversation about sex? Sex ed is not a once-and-done plumbing lesson but an ongoing effort to provide context and moral guidance according to your child’s knowledge, maturity level, and experiences.

Do you know what your child knows-or doesn’t know? Has your child heard the beautiful message that sex is the loving expression of faithful, committed marital love? Does your child appreciate its power and significance? Does he or she know that the meaning of sex implies that sexual behavior outside of marriage is wrong? That it can injure us spiritually, emotionally, and even physically? And that some kinds of sexual behavior are degrading and always wrong?

It’s our God-given parental responsibility-and privilege–to shape our child’s vision of sexuality. Don’t cede control to teachers, nurses, or clinic workers who not only don’t know your child but also won’t provide any moral context for the sexual messages they deliver.

Take the opportunity this summer to continue your child’s sexual education, under your roof, according to your values!

http://townhall.com/columnists/rebeccahagelin/2012/06/13/culture_challenge_of_the_week_parents_barred_from_influence_over_sex/page/full/

Rebecca Hagelin

Rebecca Hagelin is a public speaker on the family and culture and the author of the new best seller, 30 Ways in 30 Days to Save Your Family.

Movie theater packed out watching “One Nation Under God”

There clearly are people who are hungry for truth and information that leads to action!  The DVD “One Nation Under God” has that kind of impact.

A lady from California yesterday called to order three copies of the DVD “One Nation Under God”.  She called reporting that a group of Tea Party friends asked a local movie theater to show “One Nation Under God”.  The theater was so packed at the first showing that they showed it a second time that night!

At the showing, a sheet of paper was provided announcing that if they wanted a DVD of the powerful 2 hour DVD to contact our ministry.

Another California lady ordered 29 copies of this powerful DVD!

The entire DVD is loaded with powerful information. It concludes with a twenty minute information/exhortation piece from David Barton, founder of Wallbuilders, where he gives significant documentation on recent elections showing what happens when Christians vote (and vote their values) and what happens when they don’t.

It is a powerful message that should be shown far and wide to our local churches in Sunday School sessions (or special showings after the Sunday morning service), to civic groups, etc.

Other presenters on the DVD included Dr. James Dobson, Lila Rose, Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, John Sternberger and others.

So much is at stake!  These folks in California have a sense of urgency?  Do you?

Do I?   May God help us to rise from lethargy!

Many of you have ordered the free DVD.  Those of you who haven’t are missing out.  Please think about getting involved by doing these three things!

(1) Order it. (2) View it yourself. (3) Open your heart and mind to what you can do to share it with others. a. have loved ones watch it with you in your home. b. share it with others.  Make copies of it yourself and circulate it. c. talk with your pastor. Urge him to have a special showing for at least the Barton section – the last 25 minutes of hour two.

Order the DVD right here

Or call 888-733-2326 to place your order!

http://www.americandecency.org/archives/movie-theater-packed-out-watching-%e2%80%9cone-nation-under-god%e2%80%9d/#more-6713