The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that 14 twelve-foot high crosses commemorating fallen Utah state Highway Patrol troopers are unconstitutional because they would show preferential treatment to Christianity for the “reasonable observer.”  The crosses were put on public property at the expense of private individuals who received permission to place the cross from the families of the fallen Utah Highway Patrol troopers.

"My clients are not anti-highway patrol trooper and don't want to disrespect the troopers who have lost their lives," said Utah attorney Brian Barnard, who represents American Atheists, Inc. who filed the suit. "But there are ways of honoring these troopers without emphasizing religion. We can honor them in such way that includes all Utahns whether they are religious or nonreligious."

Here is my question: What if they are religious?  The Constitution says that we will not establish a national religion and will not trample on the religious liberty of other Americans.  It says nothing about people of non-belief.  How do you satisfy non-religious people?  According to Americans United for Separation of Church and State and groups like American Atheists, Inc. you must remove all remnants of religion from public viewing.  The problem is obvious.  Satisfying these types of non-religious people violates the U.S. Constitution.  

The concept of “separation of church and state” is greatly misunderstood in this country.  The best book I have ever read on the subject is God and Government, by Chuck Colson.  In it Chuck Colson identifies the reality of what our Founding Fathers were trying to do when they wrote the 1st Amendment.  Separation of church and state is far different than separation of politics and religion.  While our country should not adopt the institution of a particular religion, the moral and ethical principles give to us by religion is vital to civic and governmental stability.  Politics and religion are integrally connected because politics requires a moral foundation.  All of law requires the assurance of a moral foundation.  The moral foundation of our country is rooted in Judeo-Christian principles.

When the Judeo-Christian principles we have traditionally stood upon begin to fade out of priority or preference, only to satisfy angry liberals and bitter atheists, we should expect that the rock we stand upon will soon turn to sand.  As an example, when the principle of “thou shalt not kill” is abandoned, we start to see an increase in public acceptance of abortion, euthanasia, and assisted suicide.  It is only because of our culture’s desire to push God out of our lives, schools, memorial sites, etc that we are seeing ethics and morals flee as well.  

Our current cultural problems are inherently connected to our rejection of the God in whom we should trust.  The concepts of religious liberty and freedom are specifically religious ideas that have a rich history within Christianity.  I cannot think of one secular state (Mao Ze Dung’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Hitler’s Germany, Stalin or Lenin’s Soviet Union, etc) that has respected religious liberty.  

In a secular culture, what is the benefit of respecting the religious faiths of others?  If religious faith is nothing more than belief in imaginary things, as atheists propose, why would the government or any other group value your ability to practice your faith?  There is no benefit for atheists and secularists in having you pledge allegiance to God.  We must remember that there is zero hope in a secular culture recognizing religion as having unique, special, and necessary value in helping improve the status quo. 

-----

Billy Atwell contributes to Catholic Online, and blogs for The Point and the Manhattan Declaration. From the perspective of a two-time cancer survivor he encourages those afflicted with pain and struggling with faith. You can find all of his writings at For the Greater Glory.  

Chuck Colson challenges those in the Christian community who have not yet signed the Manhattan Declaration. You can Sign the Manhattan Declaration here:

by Billy Atwell

The timing couldn’t be better.  After a federal judge struck down voter-approved Proposition 8 in California, which defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman, Christians have been discouraged about the lack of continuity our public policies have with moral law.  Judge Royce Lamberth issued an injunction earlier this week, which stopped federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research.  Reuters called this “a slap to the Obama administration’s new guidelines.”  While it is still unclear whether or not this injunction will ultimately stop federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, which kills human embryos, this is a temporary victory that Christians should be proud of.

“The president said very plainly when he laid out his stem cell policy that this is important, potentially lifesaving research that could have an impact on millions of Americans and people all around the world,” White House Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton said. “He thinks that we need to do research. He put forward stringent ethical guidelines, and he thinks that his policy is the right one.”

It seems that both President Obama and Burton are missing the point of the judge’s ruling.  If it were true that an embryo-killing process could cure all of the cancers in the world, stop the spread of AIDS, and do other wonderful things, it still should not be done at the expense of other peoples’ lives.  As the old saying goes, what we can do and what we should do are separate ideas.  

Much of Judge Lamberth’s ruling hinged on the Obama administrations violation of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which bans federal funds for “research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death.”  

The concept behind embryonic stem cell research approves the killing of the most defenseless and voiceless humans in the name of those who voice their wants.  We simply cannot allow some people to be killed so that others may have regenerated organs or hope for furthered cancer cures.  As a two-time cancer survivor, I know the fear of living with a dangerous and deadly disease.  Even so, I would not feel comfortable knowing that my life was saved at the expense of someone else.

Some people are discouraged that the judge’s ruling stops most scientific work that uses embryonic stem cells, even in cases when the procedure does not necessarily destroy them.  The burden of proof is on them to prove that these embryos should be denied basic human rights.  As noted by Ron Stoddart, executive director of Nightlight Christian Adoptions, there is no way to extract stem cells without destroying the embryo.  This is no different than if we performed dangerous scientific experiments on babies or the elderly.  It’s simply unethical to do deadly experiments on people—and since embryos are people, there is no moral option to continue with these tests.

The coming weeks and months will bear more of what will happen in the legal and scientific fields as a result of this ruling.  Either way, Christians should look upon this ruling as a sign of hope in a culture that often instinctively turns in favor of the culture of death.  The Obama administration’s attempt to open the flood gates of embryonic death have been thwarted, for now.  Christians should be sure to press on and see these types of instances and glimmers of light and hope that our efforts are not done in vain.

-----

Billy Atwell contributes to Catholic Online, and blogs for The Point and the Manhattan Declaration. From the perspective of a two-time cancer survivor he encourages those afflicted with pain and struggling with faith. You can find all of his writings at For the Greater Glory.  

by Billy Atwell

“The panel is of the view that you fully appreciate the gravity of your previous misconduct and is in no doubt that you would not act in the same way should you be faced with similar circumstances in the future.”

Sounds innocent, does it not?  This quote was not taken from the mouth of a Sunday school teacher after seeing a child steal a crayon, as its triviality would indicate.  Instead, this was the judgment of the Scottish General Medical Council (GMC) regarding Dr. Iain Kerr, who prescribed sleeping pills to a suicidal elderly woman.  

Dr. Kerr is a self-professed proponent of physician-assisted suicide, a sad solution trending among Euro doctors.  How could he “fully appreciate” the gravity of his misconduct, when he does not believe his actions were unethical or immoral?  The GMC panel said, “Although you have not changed your views with regard to assisted suicide, views to which you are entitled, the panel is satisfied that you recognise you were wrong to allow these beliefs to influence the treatment of patients under your care.”  

Well I am glad the GMC panel is so comfortable with Dr. Kerr’s murderous actions, but what about the patients who are ignorant of his actions?  How can the public be assured that he will not impose his utilitarian beliefs on them again?  Here in America, child molesters must inform their neighbors whenever they move in.  Perhaps doctors who assist others in suicide should do the same with new patients.

Dr. Kerr first prescribed the sleeping pills in 1998, but it was not until he prescribed temazepam to her after a failed suicide attempt that she died from drug intoxication.  

Not to convince ourselves that the furthering of assisted suicide worldviews is limited to Europe, First Things writer Wesley J. Smith sounded the alarm of an assisted suicide billboard campaign in California and New Jersey, with more coming.  The sentiment around assisted suicide is either a social Darwinian compulsion to help those who “drain” our resources get out of our way, or a perverted compassion that makes us want to end another’s pain because of our own guilt.  

Social Darwinism is a despicable, overly rational belief that completely abandons a sense of good and the inherent value of every human life, regardless of its condition.  Those with a perverted sense of compassion often are genuine in their desire to make the other person happy.  Unfortunately for them, helping someone kill themselves to end their pain rejects the subject of the good they seek.  The subject of both pain and pleasure is the person who experiences it.  Without a person there to experience the pleasure of feeling no pain, suicide is both irrational and irrelevant to the desire.  

Our chief concern should be the person and not our own guilt in watching them suffer or in the assumption that we have a right to avoid pain and therefore should help others do the same at whatever the cost.  Also, the person must be preserved not only in honor of them, but the Creator who made them.  

While the issue of marriage and abortion often take the center-stage of the political focus, we should not forget the dangers looming across the Atlantic.  Europe is methodically moving closer to accepting assisted suicide and euthanasia universally.  Christians and all pro-life people must be educated on these issues so we can help influence the culture with a message of life and true compassion.  We must equip ourselves for this inevitable fight because—as we see with the billboard campaign—it is already here.  

-----

Billy Atwell contributes to Catholic Online, and blogs for The Point and the Manhattan Declaration. From the perspective of a two-time cancer survivor he encourages those afflicted with pain and struggling with faith. You can find all of his writings at For the Greater Glory. 

by Billy Atwell

After four previous criminal convictions and suspensions of his medical license, James Pendergraft, a Flordia abortionist who owns five abortion clinics, will keep his license even after being found guilty of two more charges.  He will serve a one-year suspension for distributing drugs to an employee and for allowing her to give narcotics to a patient.  When his suspension expires next year, he will serve three years of probation.  

Pendergraft is a career criminal who has even served time in prison.  Regardless of his malfeasance, the Florida Board of Medicine determined that he is fit to help women make the consequential decision as to whether or not they should keep their baby.  With his criminal past in drug distribution, performing of late-term abortions, killing babies born babies, and lying under oath, does anyone believe he is fit to counsel others on medical ethics?  

There’s another question at hand here that needs consideration: should he be allowed to keep his five businesses?

The skills necessary to be a doctor are the foundation of the skills needed to supervise other doctors.  If Pendergraft is not able to keep his personal actions compliant with the Florida Board of Medicine’s code of conduct or that of state and federal law, then why should we think he is qualified to run a medical practice where he supervises other abortionists?  Pendergraft has demonstrated that he is personally incapable of staying complaint with basic laws (like don’t hand out drugs like Chiclets or kill babies in the third trimester), so what faith do we have in his management of these regulations within his businesses?

What do you think?  Should Pendergraft be allowed to keep his license OR his businesses?

 

----

Billy Atwell contributes to Catholic Online, and blogs for The Point and the Manhattan Declaration. From the perspective of a two-time cancer survivor he encourages those afflicted with pain and struggling with faith. You can find all of his writings at For the Greater Glory.

by Billy Atwell

Britain’s version of Planned Parenthood is Marie Stopes International.  They are abortion advocates and providers who are well-known for their insensitive and unsettling approach to marketing their services as abortion suppliers.  MSI has come under fire in recent weeks and months for a television ad that offered help to women who think they might be pregnant but did not know what to do.  Without knowing that MSI was the largest abortion provider in Britain, they might seem compassionate and service-oriented.  The reality of what they do is egregious and depressing, which is why Britain’s Advertising Standards Authority received thousands of complaints as a result of the TV ad.

They’re at it again.  Moving from television ads to company policies, MSI now offers free abortions to staff members with benefits packages through the company, and extends this “service” to their children as well.  Other inclusions in the MSI benefit package are discounts for gym memberships, male/female sterilizations, and other medical “services.”

MSI admits to having offered free abortions to company employees for decades, but only recently made this practice officially covered under their policies.  The most significant outrage expressed because of this policy is that MSI is heavily funded by the British government.  Under the Hyde Amendment, Americans are protected from funding abortion programs with federal dollars, but the recently passed healthcare legislation brings this policy into question.

The problems with advertising abortions and offering them as free procedures are obvious on its face.  Removing the barriers to abortion is not done to give women a free choice; rather it’s done to give desperate women less choice.  After all, if it’s free…then why not?

Reducing the barrier of an abortion’s cost signifies not only a way to trap women who already feel vulnerable and without choice, but demonstrate another instance of placing a dollar value on the heads of people.  Babies in America are aborted at a cost ranging anywhere from $500 to thousands of dollars, while it appears that some babies in Britain can be aborted at no cost at all.  What this does is create a situation where babies are only saved if the financial burden is too high.  So babies that can be aborted for free—or charged to the taxpayer—have a seemingly lower value to the culture in which they were killed.  See the problem here?

When babies are allowed to be aborted as a means of birth-control and without some case of extreme medical exception, then babies are valued according to how much it costs to abort them.  If for no other reason than this—and the fact that babies have intrinsic value—the utilitarian concept of “greatest good” means money can supplement the hand of God.

-----
Billy Atwell contributes to Catholic Online, and blogs for The Point and the Manhattan Declaration. From the perspective of a two-time cancer survivor he encourages those afflicted with pain and struggling with faith. You can find all of his writings at For the Greater Glory.

After hearing about Judge Vaughn R. Walker striking down the Proposition 8 referendum in California, which became a state constitutional amendment that defined marriage as being between one man and one woman, many Christians and people of a cultural orthodox belief are discouraged that the voice of the people was rejected.  Justice Walker cited the 14th Amendment, specifically the Equal Protection Clause, in his reasoning, though he seems to be more concerned with pandering to the gay lobby than following the Constitution.

The problem with both the judge’s ruling and most pro-gay commentary you will read is this: Proposition 8 did not ban gay marriage.  To say that gay “marriage” was banned because the term’s definition did not allow for gay marriage is logically untrue.  Marriage has not, and never will, be a bond between two people of the same-sex.  All the people of California did was uphold the traditional definition of marriage “not only since America's founding but for millennia,” as stated by Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council and Manhattan Declaration signer, in a press release.

The term “gay marriage” is a logical contradiction.  First, homosexuality is not a legitimate lifestyle, even though many are forcing the issue.  Secondly, to be gay inherently means you cannot be married because you lack a natural bond with your partner.  To be gay inherently means you cannot be married.  Marriage is supposed to be procreative and express a conjugal, permanent love that is only expressed when two people are complimentary in both body and soul.  Men and women can share in procreation and conjugal love, but homosexuals cannot.  “Gay Marriage” is as illogical as a 4-cornered triangle, since the definition of one negates the possibility of the other.

Beyond the legal and Constitutional battle we are facing, a cultural battle is stirring in which our culture is buying into a lie.  This lie teaches that the only thing necessary for marriage is love; and perhaps even commitment (but with the advent of no-fault divorce and pre-nuptial agreements, even commitment is less necessary)

Deacon Keith Fournier wrote in a Catholic Online editorial, “The proponents of this New Cultural Revolution demand a legal equivalency between homosexual relationships and true marriages. In their zeal some believe they are fashioning a better world. They reject the truth concerning marriage, the implications on children, the structure of society and the real common good. Authentic marriage, and the family and society founded upon it, are the foundation of a free society. This is not only a ‘religious’ position, it is accepted across cultures and has informed Western Civilization. It is affirmed by the Natural law which can be known by all men and women through the exercise of reason.”

If we learn anything from this tragic decision from yet another leftist judge is this: do not buy into liberalized religious definitions.  Marriage rejects homosexual relationships by their very nature.  Whether these marriages become legalized or not does not mean they have any validity within the Church or within a legal system of ethics and reason.  

Racial prejudice was once a legal norm and Christians led the charge in ridding our culture of it.  Assuming the Supreme Court upholds Justice Walker’s decision, we should work to end this legalized injustice as well.

by Deacon Keith Fournier

CHESAPEAKE, VA (Catholic Online) - On May 4, 2009, Pope Benedict XVI I spoke to members of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. He reaffirmed that there is a Natural Law which can be known by all men and women through the exercise of reason. This Natural Law has also made known to all men and women the existence of fundamental human rights which are binding upon all Nations and for all time:
"The Church has always affirmed that fundamental rights, above and beyond the different ways in which they are formulated and the different degrees of importance they may have in various cultural contexts, are to be upheld and accorded universal recognition because they are inherent in the very nature of man, who is created in the image and likeness of God. If all human beings are created in the image and likeness of God, then they share a common nature that binds them together and calls for universal respect."

Understanding the existence of Natural Law as the basis of human rights is critical in the light of the current decline of Western civilization. In the U.S. and throughout much of Europe, there is a denial of fundamental Human Rights beginning with the denial of what is the foundation of all true human rights, the Right to Life. Rediscovering the truth concerning the existence of a Natural Law as the ground for human rights is the path to the recovery of western civilization. 

 

Read More...

by Billy Atwell

As reported by the Associated Press, three members of the U.S. Congress are accusing the Obama Administration for backing a Kenyan constitutional reform that would legalize abortion-on-demand in a currently pro-life country.  Nine grantees support the “yes” campaign, which means that the funds funneled by the US government did, in fact, go to support a pro-abortion campaign through other organizations.

The draft constitution’s language that has given rise to these accusations is that abortion would be legal when a mother’s life is endangered according to the opinion of a trained health professional.  A “trained health professional” is ambiguous terminology that could possibly set a very low bar for those who determine when an abortion is permissible, which is worrying Christians around the world.  

Since a democracy votes on the law of the land, foreign governments should never pump money to justify a campaign to legalize abortion.  Any effort to fund campaigns for or against abortion should be done by either private or non-profit organizations.  Too often these types of campaigns are won through exorbitant expenditure and not through the fair discourse of ideas.  The problem is only exacerbated when a country like the US, which is already over its head in debt and spends money like Mr. Monopoly made it, pumps millions into a campaign such as this.  

"The draft constitution, with its controversial provisions expanding access to abortion, is a matter for the Kenyan people to consider and decide," said Representative Chris Smith, a key pro-life advocate in the US Congress. "The Obama administration should immediately withdraw all U.S. taxpayer funding used to buy votes and influence the outcome on the referendum."

Not only is the Administration’s funding of this campaign morally wrong, it’s also illegal under US law.  The Siljander Amendment stipulates that no federal funds can be used “to lobby for or against abortion and violations are subject to civil and criminal penalties under the Antideficiency Act.”  If there is any evidence that the Obama Administration is found to be influencing the Kenyan “yes” campaign, they could be criminally liable.  

Now, of course, the Obama Administration and officials at the American embassy in Kenya say they have done nothing illegal.  They argue that the funds have been used on voter awareness and to “educate” people about the constitution.  Anywhere between $2 million (American embassy estimates) and $11 million (Representative Chris Smith’s office’s estimates) have been spent to “educate” the Kenyan people about the constitution and its provisions.  

Another confusing detail here is that the Obama Administration is claiming to be neutral with regard to the current Kenyan constitution.  US Embassy spokeswoman Katya Thomas said, “We don't fund the 'yes' campaign, but around the region, not just in Kenya, through USAID, we support constitutional democratic reforms.”  If this is so, than why are they spending millions of US tax-payer dollars to educate the Kenyan people about the constitution?  They would seemingly want to know if they support it before they go funding educational efforts around it.  

The proposed Kenyan Constitution is a “singular opportunity to put Kenyan governance on a more solid footing that can move beyond ethnic violence, can move beyond corruption,” President Obama said, in another not-so-neutral way.

The US has given Kenya money in the past for voter education; but this situation is different.  Just because the US has done something in the past does not mean that it can continue to do it in the future.  Once we violate our own laws in order to preserve a campaign that is approved by top-level officials, we have a serious Constitutional issue on our hands.  Americans are not bound to support other countries at the expense of our own.  We are duty-bound to our own first.

 

Billy Atwell contributes to Catholic Online and BreakPoint, and is a blogger for The Point. From the perspective of a two-time cancer survivor he encourages those afflicted with pain and struggling with faith. You can find all of his writings at For the Greater Glory.

By Billy Atwell

 

The National Organization for Marriage is traveling across the country promoting traditional marriage as being a union between one man and one woman.  This 23-city tour is traveling by bus and is holding rallies at the same time as a California judge determines whether or not a state amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman is constitutional.  

For fans of the Constitution, like myself, traditional marriage is a no-brainer.  But groups like Freedom to Marry don’t get it.  In a copy-cat move, this group is also traveling around the country and holding rallies to combat NOM and is using the exact same slogan, “Summer for Marriage.”  That’s right—Freedom to Marry titled their campaign the same as that of NOM.   Freedom to Marry is carrying the slogan “Love + Commitment= Marriage.”  

This slogan is logically empty.  As Chuck Colson pointed out in one of his recent Two-Minute Warning video commentaries, in which he dismantled Hillary Clinton’s strawman claim to “freedom of worship,” he says that we do not have the freedom to love or marry whomever we wish.  If this were true then pedophiles or polygamists would be free to do as they wish, Colson points out.  But we know that those cases are inherently wrong because they defy the natural order and hurt society by offering children and the couple a shell of what God intends.  

The question I would love to hear groups like Freedom to Marry address is, why should we allow gay marriage but not polygamy or consensual marriage between an adult and a minor?  Proponents of traditional marriage frequently question where this slippery slope of marriage politics could lead, once we start loosening the definition of marriage.  Keeping in mind the slogan “Love + Commitment= Marriage”, isn’t a seven-year-old girl able to love just as much as a fifty-year-old man?  So if love and commitment are the only pre-requisites for marriage, than the slippery slope argument is not only valid, it’s true!

These weak slogans and arguments sometimes confuse the public about gay marriage, because nobody wants to be the bad-guy and tell somebody what they can’t do.  But when we are dealing with something that distorts the natural order, we must be on the offensive, as NOM is.  

Damon Ownes, spokesman for NOM, said, “None of us has the power or the right to define something none of us created.”  This is an excellent point.  The institution of marriage is a natural right, which means that is pre-political, and therefore cannot be redefined by government any more than government could redefine the parent-child relationship.

Though this institution was created by God in the very beginning, dissenters are still trying to push for a type of “newspeak,” like that of George Orwell’s 1984, by changing the way we view our identity by changing the definition of the words we use.  Marriage is what it is and cannot be changed to merely satisfy a small reactionary force.  

“We’re now seeing a colorful movement attempting to ground the law into a lie about human nature,” said NOM chairman Maggie Gallagher to CitizenLink. “Two men in a union do not equal a marriage.”  In fact, if two men or two women did equal marriage, and if everyone were to buy into this lie, than humanity would cease to exist.  When the arguments are so faulty, baseless, and contingent on newspeak, it makes me wonder how they even carry on.  

The gay agenda’s newspeak tactics are not only confusing since they try to change words and the intent of institutions like marriage, but are dangerous for a society already crumbling under the weight of moral and ethical lacking, and a need for strong families as the solution.

In this video about the campaign you can see radical, pro-gay protestors threaten to kidnap children, harass a mother nursing her child, storm the podium, and out-shout the speakers (ah, the voice of tolerance and civil discord):

(Interested in participating in the campaign?  CLICK HERE to see where the next stops will be.  The campaign will end in Washington, DC on August 15)

Billy Atwell contributes to Catholic Online and BreakPoint, and is a blogger for The Point. From the perspective of a two-time cancer survivor he encourages those afflicted with pain and struggling with faith. You can find all of his writings at For the Greater Glory.