|
| "You shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born." -- The Didache, an early church catechism which outlines basic Christian doctrine. | | |
| From Townhall.com. Baptist Press
Thursday, July 03, 2008
DENVER (BP)--Giving a significant boost to Republican John McCain's goal of attracting the votes of social conservatives, nearly 100 pro-family leaders gathering in Denver July 1 agreed to unify behind the Arizona senator for president.
The leaders also approved a "Declaration of American Values" with 10 common goals, such as protecting the sanctity of life and affirming natural, traditional marriage. (A copy of the document is at the end of this story.) A complete list of attendees was not released, but representatives who were there confirmed to Baptist Press that Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum, Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel, Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America and Tim and Beverly LaHaye were among those present. Focus on the Family and the American Family Association also had representatives in attendance. One leading conservative, Paul Weyrich, did not attend because of health reasons but is "fully on board" and sent someone to represent him, Staver said. Staver, who called the meeting, acknowledged that "there have been some bruises and disagreements" among conservatives during the primary season but said it was time to move on. He said "99.9 percent" of those who were in attendance agreed to get behind McCain. The meeting was first reported by Time.com. "I felt that it was absolutely critical in order to preserve our shared core Christian and moral values that we have unity among the leadership and that we look at the landscape and focus not on candidates, not on personalities and not on parties but on our values, and then assess who can best advance those values," Staver told BP. "Once we did that, it was pretty obvious that that would be Sen. John McCain, because Sen. Barack Obama would decimate them. "... We're not suggesting that supports 100 percent of the values that we support," Staver continued. "We are, however, saying that he is an individual of integrity and that he would support our values more than Sen. Barack Obama." Other attendees at the meeting included Dick and Rich Bott of Bott Radio Network, Kelly Shackelford of the Texas-based Free Market Foundation, John Stemberger of the Florida Family Policy Council, Phil Burress of the Ohio-based Citizens for Community Values, Tim Clinton of the American Association of Christian Counselors, David Barton of WallBuilders, William Owens of the Coalition of African-American Pastors, Steve Strang of Charisma Magazine and Don Hodel, former president of Focus on the Family. James Dobson of Focus on the Family was in California working on a book and did not attend. The meeting was but the latest good news for McCain regarding support from pro-family leaders. Several days earlier, Burress -- who had previously stated his concerns about McCain -- announced in an e-mail to friends he had had a change of heart after having a private meeting, along with five other pro-family leaders, with McCain in Ohio June 26. Burress said he believes there's a greater difference between McCain and Obama than there was in 2004 between President Bush and Democrat John Kerry. "It's not even close," he said. McCain, Burress said, sides with social conservatives on the major issues, particularly abortion and the judiciary. (McCain says he wants to see Roe v. Wade overturned.) Further, Burress also said he takes heart in McCain's pledge to nominate Supreme Court justices like President Bush's two nominees, John Roberts and Samuel Alito. The concerns Burress says he had about McCain are gone, Burress said. "This is not your typical politician. He doesn't stick his finger in the wind," said Burress, adding he will work in Ohio to educate people about the differences between McCain and Obama. But Burress also said it's crucial for McCain to choose a pro-life, pro-family running mate. Some conservative leaders, Burress said, will abandon McCain if he does otherwise. The make-up of the Supreme Court is one issue driving conservatives' sense of urgent need to get behind McCain. The two oldest members of the court -- 88-year-old John Paul Stevens and 75-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- both support Roe v. Wade and, some observers believe, are wanting to retire but waiting for a Democrat to win the White House. Some conservatives believe the court is only one vote away from overturning Roe. "The judiciary is a huge factor," Staver said. "It's important who sits on the United States Supreme Court bench and who is appointed in the other federal courts ... because those affect our shared core values. Those judges either protect or they undermine our shared core values." Staver also said the leaders in Denver discussed ways to advances their goals beyond November. "We want to make sure we have a trans-generational, multi-ethnic, multi-racial coalition of similarly associated individuals who share these values," he said. | | |
| (CNN) -- Democrats have usually conceded the evangelical vote during presidential elections, but Sen. Barack Obama is trying to change that by mobilizing what some call the "Christian left." As part of his outreach to evangelical voters, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee will tour the Eastside Community Ministry in Zanesville, Ohio, on Tuesday and give an address on how he plans to builda "real" partnership between faith-based organizations and the White House if he becomes president. Obama's outreach to evangelical voters has also included private summits with pastors, an effort to reach out to young evangelicals and a fundraiser with the Matthew 25 political action committee. It describes itself as a group of moderate evangelicals, Catholics and Protestants committed to electing the Illinois Democrat president. Matthew 25's name is inspired by a biblical passage, in the 25th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, in which Jesus says, "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink." The name is meant to signal the group's focus on social justice concerns about hot-button cultural issues. Brian McLaren, a former pastor who spent 24 years in the pulpit and is now an informal adviser to the Obama campaign, believes that a significant portion of evangelical voters are ready to break from their traditional home in the the Republican Party and take a new leap of faith with Obama. "I think there's a very, very sizable percentage -- I think between a third and half -- of evangelicals, especially younger [evangelicals], who are very open to somebody with a new vision," McLaren said. That new vision, he said, isn't focused on traditional social issues like abortion and gay marriage but more on efforts to end global warming and the war in Iraq. "We've watched the evangelical community be led -- be misled -- by the Republican Party to support things they really shouldn't have supported," McLaren said, including "the blind support for the Iraq war when it was launched on either mistaken or false pretenses." Unlike previous presidential elections, when the religious right's criticism of Democratic presidential candidates went largely unchallenged, Obama's evangelical supporters rallied around the Democrat when Christian conservative James Dobson accused him of "deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible." Pastor Kirbyjon Caldwell, the Texas minister who officiated at first daughter Jenna Bush's wedding, and "a coalition of pastors and other Christians ... who are standing up for our Christian faith and supporting Barack Obama" created a Web site called "James Dobson Doesn't Speak For Me" that attempts to refute Dobson's claims with quotes from Obama. "The Apostle John speaks for me in reminding us of Jesus' command to love one another. The world will know His disciples by that love," a statement on the site says. "These words speak for me. But when James Dobson attacks Barack Obama, James Dobson doesn't speak for me." Recent polling suggests, however, that a majority of white evangelical voters are still backing Sen. John McCain, though enthusiasm for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee among evangelicals is less than what it was for President Bush in 2004. In a CNN poll conducted by Opinion Research Corporation on June 4-5, nearly two-thirds of white evangelical voters surveyed, 64 percent, supported McCain, and 30 percent backed Obama. The poll's margin of error was plus or minus 6.5 percentage points. In comparison, Bush received the support of 78 percent of evangelical voters in the 2004 election, according to exit polls. Despite the lower enthusiasm for McCain among rank-and-file evangelicals, leaders of the Christian right movement have already attacked Obama for his social views. In one instance, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, posted a video on YouTube that challenged Obama's position on abortion. "Talking about faith issues is not about singing 'Kum Ba Yah,' " said Charmaine Yoest of the Family Research Council, another conservative evangelical group. "It's about the public policies the person is going to put in place." But some leaders of the religious right who worked hard to get Bush into the White House have been underwhelmed by the outreach from the McCain campaign and are less likely to fight for McCain as they did for Bush. For example, in spring 2004, Michael Farris and his organization, Generation Joshua, were heavily involved in the planning for a fall effort to drive evangelical voters to the polls to re-elect Bush. But Harris and his organization had yet to be contacted by the Republican National Committee or McCain's campaign as of mid-June and did not plan any efforts in key swing states as they did in 2004. "We don't feel invested in his candidacy," Farris said, "and he clearly doesn't feel invested in us." Farris is not alone among evangelical leaders about his uneasiness with McCain. "The evangelical community seems to be sitting on the fence to a particular degree," said Jacques Berlinerblau, a professor at Georgetown University. And that could give Obama an opportunity, he said. "If Sen. Obama can get between 30 and 33 percent [of the evangelical vote] in those crucial swing states, he's absolutely golden," Berlinerblau said. | | |
| By Catholic News Service
WASHINGTON (CNS) -- NBC News Washington bureau chief and "Meet the Press" moderator Tim Russert, who died June 13 at the age of 58, was remembered for his warm lifelong ties to the Catholic Church and his support for Catholic education as well as for his career covering politics.
Russert collapsed of an apparent heart attack at work.
An active Catholic who apparently kept a promise to God to never miss Sunday Mass if his son was born healthy, Russert spoke often and fondly of his Catholic school education and of the role of the church in his life.
"Americans valued his tremendous command of the political electoral process and his commitment to discovering each aspect of the story that contributed to people having a better awareness of the issues of public life and candidates for political office," said Archbishop George H. Niederauer of San Francisco, chairman of the U.S. bishops' communications committee, who was attending the U.S. bishops' spring meeting in Orlando, Fla.
"But those of us who shared his Catholic faith and his deep love for it appreciate his sharing of the story of his own faith and his loyalty to the life of the Catholic Church in this country and the many charities to which he contributed his time and talent," the archbishop told Catholic News Service.
Russert had been scheduled to give the Catholic Common Ground Initiative's Philip J. Murnion Lecture June 27 at The Catholic University of America in Washington.
In opening the 2000 convention of the National Catholic Educational Association, Russert recalled his years at Canisius High School in Buffalo, N.Y., and John Carroll University in Cleveland, both Jesuit schools. Russert said his father, a sanitation worker who never finished high school, "worked two jobs all his life so his four kids could go to Catholic school, and those schools changed my life."
"Sister Mary Lucille founded a school newspaper and appointed me editor and changed my life," he added. Teachers in Catholic schools "taught me to read and write, but also how to tell right from wrong."
Msgr. Francis Maniscalco, former communications secretary for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, described Russert as a formidable journalist but also "just a very good man" and "very much a down-to-earth Catholic."
"He took his religious faith seriously," said Msgr. Maniscalco, who is currently the Respect Life director and public policy adviser for the Diocese of Rockville Centre, N.Y.
The priest said Russert was a "serious Catholic" as shown in his book, "Big Russ & Me." He also recalled how Russert helped the bishops' communications department put together a group of Washington-based journalists at the time of the clergy sex-abuse crisis to discuss media coverage of the issue.
He fondly remembered how Russert was "always double-checking to see if he could get an interview with Pope John Paul (II)," and periodically reminding Msgr. Maniscalco the interview had been loosely promised by the Vatican.
Russert told church workers attending the 2005 Catholic Social Ministry Gathering that "if there's an issue that Democrats, Republicans, conservatives and liberals can agree on, it's our kids." With "15 million kids largely living off the streets" and 12 youths shot dead daily in the United States, addressing the issue is imperative, Russert said.
"Who are our children? How do we get into their hearts and minds," Russert asked, "to get them to see the value of our values?"
In dealing with his own son, Luke, Russert added that he tells him, "You are always, always loved, but you are never entitled."
Russert, his wife, Maureen Orth, and their son had just returned from a trip to Italy to celebrate Luke's graduation from Boston College.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said in a statement that Russert "was a warm and gracious family man with a great zest for life and an unsurpassed passion for his work" whose work was an inspiration to many.
"Tim asked the tough questions the right way and was the best in the business at keeping his interview subjects honest," Reid said.
President George W. Bush said in a statement that Russert "was an institution in both news and politics for more than two decades. Tim was a tough and hardworking newsman. He was always well-informed and thorough in his interviews. And he was as gregarious off the set as he was prepared on it." | | |
| Source: Leadership UniversityDr. Phil Bishop
Professor of exercise physiology, Bishop has served as a visiting scientist in the NASA Exercise Countermeasures Program at Johnson Space Center, Houston.
I have one but one distinction. I am the only U.S. professor who has been restricted by a court of law (the US 11th Circuit Court of Appeals) from mentioning Christianity in a university classroom. A personal experience In 1987, as an untenured assistant professor of Physical Education at the University of Alabama, I was issued a university memorandum telling me to refrain from any mention of Christianity in my classroom or on campus again. What would you do? Many Christians suggested that I had yielded my rights to free speech when I accepted the job as professor at a public University. Clearly, they insisted, it was a condition of employment and I was free to quit the University and talk about Christianity as much as I desired. It was improper for an academic who was not a religious studies professor to talk about religion anyway. Perhaps not surprisingly to some, the Court of Appeals sided with the nay-sayers and ruled that the university had the right “to set the curriculum” and as such my employer was perfectly within their bounds to restrict my speech in any reasonable manner. In contrast, one of the Circuit Judges (there was a three-judge panel to hear the appeal) asked an important question of the University attorney. The University was arguing against the Federal District Judge, who had ruled that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and academic freedom existed particularly for the purpose of allowing such detestable speech even if it was favorable to Christianity. The Circuit judge asked, “Does this mean the University will post a monitor in every classroom to rule on what is, and what is not part of the curriculum?” His statement captures the essence of the argument. What academic freedom means to students Academic freedom, though perhaps underappreciated, means a great deal to students. Many students will have their greatest exposure to the most educated group of people in the world during their days in the university. Whether brilliant or ordinary, university professors are well educated and highly expert in their specialty area. Students are paying for, and deserve to hear, what these bright people have to say. However, students (or their parents) pay tuition to learn about particular subject matter. Faculty are obligated to provide students with that subject matter as well as its implications. Further, faculty have a much restricted opportunity to pass along their views on many matters beyond the curriculum as long as those views are respectful both of students, and of the need to fully cover course materials. A university education is more than just vocational training; it is an opportunity to learn to think, to reflect, to analyze, and to form arguments and grounded opinions. Faculty sometimes must stray briefly beyond the strict curricular bounds to capitalize on opportunities to educate students, in the broadest sense of the word. What academic freedom means to Faculty Faculty have the freedom, within their academic specialty, to provide information regardless of how controversial it may be. This, as a matter of respect, must be done in a manner appropriate to the level of the student, done in as least-offensive manner as possible and done with respect to the course content. Faculty should recognize that students are paying tuition and signing up for courses with reasonable expectations of receiving information relevant to the course. Faculty have the opportunity to engage students to provoke them to think, to reflect, to analyze, and to form arguments and grounded opinions. Academic freedom means, as the Circuit judge suggested, that it would be inappropriate, impractical and chilling for the University to monitor classes to censor speech. Academic freedom does not mean that teachers can ignore the curriculum or act disrespectfully towards students or anyone else. It does mean that the best, most radical, and perhaps most helpful thinking of the faculty will not be censored. What academic freedom does NOT mean to Faculty or Students Like business transactions, and many other aspects of human discourse, there is an element of trust between supervisors, administrators, students, tuition-paying parents, and the professors who teach courses. When teachers violate this trust, students and others with a vested interest are entitled to seek relief. In my personal case, academic freedom did not mean that I could spend substantial amounts of time discussing Christianity in a physiology class, and the university never alleged that. Academic freedom did not mean that I could speak disrespectfully of other religions or beliefs, and the university never alleged that either. Academic freedom did not mean that I could brow-beat, intimidate, or pressure students to adopt or feign any particular philosophical belief system. The university did allege that by virtue of my position as a teacher, I was doing so merely by stating a Christian view. I object. Every professor bears a certain mantle of inherent authority, and to use that as a basis for denying academic freedom is the essence of prior restraint of speech. Summary The issue of Academic Freedom is near to my heart. From my biased perspective, academic freedom can never be, contrary to the US Constitution and to numerous court ruling, content specific. That is, I have never heard of any colleague being restricted from mentioning any other religion in the public University. Many of my colleagues around the country feel total academic freedom to attack Christianity. And I defend their right to do so. Neither Jehovah, nor Christianity, is awed by hostility. My personal experience is that any topic is open for debate on the public university campus, except for Christianity. And I say that without rancor. In fact the public university’s distaste for Christianity is part of why I think teaching here is so great. I love arguing the minority position. I love being salt and light in a place where Christianity is least welcome in the USA. God made me for just such a ministry and place. In my own case and to my surprise I was not fired by the university. In fact, I was promoted on time, twice and given nice pay raises. I have had a terrific career. Personally I benefitted greatly from my time in court and would do it again. However, the content-specific restriction on my academic freedom seems the worst form of academic censorship. In the end, the Holy Spirit through James (James 1:1) gave the best advice. “Count it all joy when you encounter various trials…” | | |
|
