Thursday, November 1, 2007

You'd Think a Baptist Minister Would Know!

On the O'Reilly Factor last night, Mike Huckabee, presidential hopeful and former Arkansas Governor, again refused to confirm beliefs held by the majority of conservative, born-again Christians.

When asked about his answer in the now famous debate from June of this year concerning evolution, he continued to be ambiguous, saying, "I represent 90% of the American people who believe God was 'involved' in the creation." Really? God was just 'involved' in the process? I thought for sure He was totally responsible for creation.

But it doesn't stop there. O'Reilly presses him further, saying, "But most of us--and I believe God was involved in creation too--believe that there was an evolutionary process." To this, Huckabee replied, "There well could have been." Unbelievable! So now the Baptist minster believes in evolution, after being one of three candidates (Tom Tancredo and Sam Brownback being the other two) who raised his hand at a previous debate when the question was asked, "Is there anyone on this stage who doesn't believe in evolution?" Huckabee went on to mention Dr. Frances Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, who he identified as an evolutionist and a "very devout evangelical Christian", in an attempt to try to justify his apparent position that evolution and Christianity are not incompatible.

Combine these with his repeated remarks about creation in regard to not knowing how God did it, or how long it took, and I think conservative Christians who support Huckabee would be wise to probe a little deeper. While I understand that there are different views among Christians concerning creation, you would think a Baptist minister would at least have a position.

O'Reilly continues pressing Huckabee on his faith, asking, "Do you believe that people who don't believe Jesus is God can get to Heaven?" Huckabee: "I believe Jesus is the way to Heaven. That's what the Scripture teaches. If someone else has a different belief and they figure out how to get there apart from that, that's the only way I know how to get there." That's the only way he knows how to get there? Does that mean he thinks there might be other ways? How about saying there is only one way to get to Heaven, period?

O'Reilly: "OK, so you say that you're secure in your own beliefs, but you're not telling anybody else that they are or are not going to Heaven?" Huckabee: "That's not my job. My job is to make sure I make it on my convictions." Again I ask, really? I thought it was our job as followers of Christ to preach the Gospel and make disciples, which would entail letting people know that Jesus is the only way, and without Him there is no hope for spending eternity in Heaven.

Toward the end of the interview, Huckabee criticizes people who say they're Christians, but then don't live like it. Maybe he should take the log out of his own eye before trying to find a speck in someone else's!

Friday, October 26, 2007

All It Takes Is One Offended Person

Speaking of flags, a complaint by one person has led to a ban on the flag-folding recitations by Veterans Administration employees and volunteers at all 125 national cemeteries. The complaint originated at a ceremony in California (no surprise there!).

In yet another misguided application of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the ban was issued because of the narration during the 11th fold, which celebrates Jewish war veterans and "glorifies the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." The 12th fold glorifies "God the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost", but that apparently was not included in the complaint.

This is just another example of one person being able to change tradition because it is offensive to that person, despite that it is accepted by the vast majority. Now, I'm not saying majority rules in cases of right and wrong, but in this case the ban is not right, because it has no constitutional basis (at least not according to the original intent of the framers of the Constitution).

Story here.

Sunday, October 7, 2007

The United States of....Homosexuals?

Many of us have been incensed when we see the American flag be treated disrepsectfully by supporters of illegal immigration (flag flown upside down, flown under the Mexican flag, etc.). However, I believe disrespect has been taken to a new level by something I saw yesterday--an American flag with the "gay pride" rainbow stripes in place of the red and white stripes. I imagine it won't be too long before homosexual activists will be pushing to have this made our official national flag.

One point of irony: The house flying this flag is located on Rainbow Drive.

Thursday, September 6, 2007

Liberal hypocrisy....or is that being redundant?

Aren't many of the Democrat congressmen who are calling for action to be taken against Larry Craig some of the same ones who, during Clinton's White House sex scandal, said it was none of anyone's business what Bill Clinton did in his private life?

I'm certainly not defending Craig's actions. If he is guilty, I'm all for him facing the consequences. I'm just saying let's make sure we apply the same standards to everyone.

Tuesday, September 4, 2007

It's Only a Big Deal If a Republican Does It, I Guess...

Many of you reading this will have heard of the homosexual scandal involving Larry Craig (R-Idaho). However, there is another story out of Florida that you may not have heard about.

Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle has been attempting to crack down on homosexual sex in public bathrooms, the very offense with which Larry Craig was charged. Not only is there very little national media coverage of this, but the mayor, rather than being lauded for his efforts, is being attacked from various quarters. Story here.

Of course, you would expect the homosexual community to be vociferous in their opposition, and they are. In fact, they are calling for his resignation, merely because he is enforcing the law! To see his apology to the community for not being aware of the problem earlier, select the video entitled "Mayor Naugle, other speakers attack gay sex" (little bit of spin in that headline!) at this site. There are other videos about this story you will want to watch, including a very angry, disruptive, and disrespectful person trying to prevent Janet Folger from speaking.

I can understand why the homosexual activists want to get rid of the mayor (and silence anyone else who stands with him and speaks out against this). He is bringing attention to this perverse homosexual behavior, which is commonplace, that would lose them support from many of their allies, and energize opposition from the complacent public, if they became aware of it.

But it gets worse. The county commissioners of Broward County voted unanimously to remove Mayor Naugle from the Tourism Development Council, citing fears that his remarks about the rampant illegal sexual activity and his vows to clean it up would result in lost tourism dollars. Click on the video link at this site to see the commission's comments and vote. Read the story here.

Just another example of the Almighty Dollar triumphing over right, although I'm sure some of the commissioners don't see anything wrong with having homosexual sex in public restrooms. So what if a child might walk in on the middle of it. As long as the county doesn't lose the gay tourists, everything will be just fine.

Monday, September 3, 2007

Hardee's Is At It Again!

Last night I was watching the local news with my daughter, and all of a sudden a commercial came on that could be described only as disgusting at best, soft-porn at worst. I didn't want to watch it, nor did my daughter, so I changed channels, then changed back again to see whose commercial it was. I had a pretty good idea, and I was right. Hardee's. They were advertising their sandwich with the "flat buns", so that gives you some idea where they went with that! Let's just say there was a very attractive female teacher and some high-school boys involved.

They are becoming infamous for their commercials that push the sexual envelope, including one previously with bad girl Paris Hilton. They have aired five or six commercials in the past, that I'm aware of, that have over-the-top sexual content.

I won't post the videos here, but if you go to YouTube and search for either Hardee's or Carl's Jr. (their brand name out west), you will find them.

I encourage parents and everyone else who cares about keeping our broadcast channels free from this kind of filth to boycott Hardee's, and call your local store manager, as well as the corporate headquarters, to let them know what you think about this kind of commercial.

Monday, July 9, 2007

Huckabee at the NEA Convention

Huckabee received a warm reception at this year's NEA (National Education Association) convention. I get a bit concerned when a Republican candidate is well received by the NEA, whose positions on almost every social issue are diametrically opposed to those of conservative Christians. You can watch a clip of his comments here.

Huckabee talks not only about increasing teacher pay (what about accountability?), but also says that music and art should be taught at every grade level. When a presidential candidate talks like that, it sounds like he is advocating more involvement in education by the federal government. We need less, not more, of the federal government in our schools. Tom Tancredo would seek to get the federal government out of the education business.

At the convention, Huckabee said, "I'd like to tell you I became a rock star". Really? I'd rather just hear him say that he is grateful for the positions in which God has placed him.

Oh, and one more thing. To Christian audiences, Huckabee speaks of his support for homeschooling, but at the NEA convention, he bragged about being the first Arkansas governor in 50 years to send his own kids to public school from grades 1 through 12. I'm not saying that he can't be an advocate for homeschooling even though he sent his own kids to public school; I'm just saying that I have noticed he tells each crowd what they want to hear. Besides, I'd rather have a candidate who is not afraid to stand up and say that public education is broken and needs a major overhaul, not minor tinkering and throwing more money into the system.

Sunday, July 8, 2007

Why I am supporting Tancredo instead of Huckabee

I had originally planned to support Mike Huckabee, and was still somewhat undecided until the ICA/ITR forum on June 30, but he is kind of waffling or hedging on some of the important issues, in my opinion. A lot of what he says sounds good, especially to a conservative evangelical Christian such as myself. However, you have to listen carefully to hear what he is NOT saying, and note the questions about the issues that he is not really answering directly, even when asked directly. Some might wonder why I, as a conservative Baptist, have chosen to support Tom Tancredo over a Baptist minister (Huckabee). Here are a few of the reasons:

1) While I do appreciate some of what Huckabee has said on the evolution issue, and his boldness to say he believes there is a God who created things, and his refusal to back down, he does hedge somewhat. If he really doesn't know how long it took God to form creation, or how long ago he did it, then he apparently doesn't take the Bible literally. It seems, though, that he is trying to give a "safe" answer. No doubt he knows that, while the majority of people may not believe the literal account of creation, only a small minority believe there is no god or that God had nothing at all to do with creation. So his somewhat vague answer played to the majority, while offending probably only a small percentage.

Huckabee said he believed God "created this process". What 'process' is that? Calling it a 'process' makes it sound more like evolution than creation. God didn't create the "process", he created creation! Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I have high expectations of him because of the fact he is an evangelical, conservative Baptist pastor. I understand that Christians disagree on this issue, but I would at least expect that--being a pastor--he would have a position on it! And he seemed irritated that the question was even asked at a debate.

2) Huckabee has refused to say same-sex marriage is wrong, saying instead that we need to fix heterosexual marriage before we talk about whether or not to change the definition of marriage. In the meanwhile, the courts ARE changing the definition of marriage.

3) He refuses to say adoption by same-sex parents is harmful to a child, instead saying that "we just don't know yet", and saying we need to look at what is best for the child, whether the parents are heterosexual or homosexual. I agree that we need to look at what is best for the child, but he is avoiding answering the question about same-sex adoption.

4) He wouldn't directly say that homosexuals serving in the military was not a good thing. When pressed with the question two or three times, he would only say that "it is already covered by the Uniform Code of Military Justice", and he didn't think that needed to be changed.

5) He does not appear to be very strong on trying to make abortion illegal, instead saying, "We need to look at changing one heart at a time, rather than passing one piece of legislation at a time". While I agree winning hearts should be the ultimate goal, many hearts will never be won. Meanwhile, thousands of babies are being killed every day.

6) Finally, although many would disagree with me, and it wouldn't be an issue for most, as a conservative Baptist Christian it bothers me somewhat that a supposedly conservative Baptist minister would play songs like "Born to be Wild" in his secular rock band. A lot of people would probably think it "cool" that a presidential candidate--especially a Baptist minister--would not be so stuffy, but instead is willing to get in touch with his "wild side" through the music he plays. However, I am ready for someone who is more interested in espousing conservative principals than embracing pop culture.

Maybe he is just being a smart politician, but aren't we ready for someone who isn't afraid to boldly proclaim their positions on the issue, no matter to whom they are speaking? Haven't we had enough of politicians who change their rhetoric to fit their audience? How do we know what they really believe? I know electability is a factor, but I believe Tancredo IS electable, AND he shares his same core beliefs unabashedly with every audience. Look what happened when Nussle was anointed our candidate for governor because of his perceived greater electability. If we would have gone with Vander Plaats, we could very well have a Republican governor now. I'm not trying to second guess, but I'm just saying that the "electability" factor doesn't always serve us well. I am looking for someone I know is a true conservative on every issue. I want someone who is not afraid to take a stand on the controversial issues. Like Tancredo says, "When conservatives run ON our principles, we win. When we run FROM them, we lose".

If Huckabee becomes the Republican candidate, I will certainly support him with passion in the general election, but he is not my first choice of candidates. From what I know of all the candidates, Huckabee might be #2, but not a close #2 at this point. I don't know enough about Duncan Hunter, but he might bump Huckabee if I knew more about him.

Monday, July 2, 2007

Tancredo Winner at ICA/ITR Forum

At the presidential forum held in Des Moines on June 30, 2007, Tom Tancredo was the clear winner, receiving two standing ovations. According to the LA Times, "Of the six candidates who spoke, Tancredo received the best reception, coming and going to standing ovations." (Full article here). I'm not sure about the standing ovation as he was coming, but I know that he received one during his speech, as well as at the end.

Tancredo, without question, energized the crowd significantly more than any of the other candidates. The rest of the candidates were Tommy Thompson, Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Duncan Hunter. You can watch Tancredo's speech here: Team Tancredo website.

Monday, June 18, 2007

Friday, April 20, 2007

Letters to the Editor About Danielson's March 10 Verbal Attack on a Citizen

The following links are self explanatory, so I won't add much further comment. The first link is a letter from Alvira Morris, responding to the behavior she observed Senator Danielson exhibit at the March 10, 2007 legislative forum. At the end of the letter is a response that the Waterloo Courier solicited from Danielson.

The second link is a letter from Al Manning, responding to Danielson's response to the first letter, as well as his remarks at the forum.

Alvira Morris' Letter

Al Manning's Letter

Blog Post (Including Video) About Danielson's Tirade at the Forum

Monday, April 9, 2007

Sunday, April 8, 2007

Legislators Won't Call Homosexuality Immoral

In today's Waterloo Courier, in a piece about the proposed addition of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to the state's civil rights code titled "Civil rights bill shows shift in political winds", columnist Charlotte Eby observes that "one of the interesting shifts taking place is the refusal of opponents to publicly call homosexuality immoral or distasteful." Unfortunately, she is right.

There are at least four reasons for this:

1) Some people (Christians included) have actually been convinced that perhaps homosexuality is not sinful after all. Many of these people have bought into the argument of the homosexual movement that "God would not create people with same-sex attraction if homosexuality was a sin". They often buy into this argument after learning that a family member or close friend is attracted to same sex. However, knowing someone in this lifestyle--no matter how nice of a person they might be--does not alter the fact that homosexuality IS sinful, and God did NOT create man to lie with man.

2) Many well meaning Christians have come to believe that we cannot use God's word when making arguments in a secular world, instead arguing with statistics about the dangers of the homosexual lifestyle and trying to show that promoting homosexuality is bad for our culture. They think that Bible-based arguments will be rejected out of hand and they will be condemned for basing their arguments on something as archaic and irrelevant to today's society as the Bible. They have also cowed to the false assertion that religious beliefs have no place in the public square (I submit that ALL decisions are based on a person's religious beliefs, even if the person is an atheist). The trouble with this is two-fold: a) the pro-homosexual "rights" crowd will not accept any argument, no matter how many statistics you throw at them, and b) without a moral foundation like the Bible--if there is no objective truth and unchanging view of right and wrong--people who might be open to considering both sides of the argument will see no more validity in our view than in the view of the pro-homosexual crowd. We will be left to appeal on the basis of emotion and compassion, and we have seen that the pro-homosexual crowd has had much more success in that arena than we have.

There is spiritual power in God's word. There is no spiritual power in statistics. Most often, we will be rejected anyway, but it is better to be rejected for Christ, rather than for our secular arguments. All we can do is tell people what God says and leave the results up to Him. They may boo, hiss, and laugh when we try to use biblical arguments, but didn't Jesus tell us that's what we would face when we professed to be His followers? Why, then, should be be surprised, and why should we cringe from what we have been commanded to do?

3) The majority of people who think homosexuality is a sin are not willing to publicly state that view, because the homosexual movement has been very effective in portraying their members as helpless victims in need of protection, and portraying anyone who thinks homosexuality is wrong as "homophobic", "bigoted", "hateful", "fascist", and other nice names. No one wants to be called one of those nasty names, so most keep silent, which was the goal of the homosexual movement all along. They weren't able to win the debate on the basis of morality, or any other basis, so their strategy was to silence the opposition by making them appear hateful, intolerant, and even dangerous. In almost every case where people have been able to express their opinion privately, they say homosexuality is wrong. Witness the fact that out of 28 states that have voted for an amendment to define marriage as only between one man and one woman, 27 have approved it, by margins that are not even close.

4) Contributing to the previous three reasons, is the fact that few pastors teach that homosexuality is a sin anymore. Most churches either avoid the subject entirely or, in the case of liberal churches, they (wrongly) teach that same-sex attraction is a trait given us by God, and therefore just as normal as opposite-sex attraction. One could make that same argument about all kinds of sinful behavior that people are predisposed to. In fact, just that fact that we are all sinful could be used as an argument that God doesn't condemn sin. The truth is that we are born with a sinful nature because of the sin of the first man, Adam. We all sin; it is a choice we make. That does not mean that God created us to sin, nor that He condones sin of any kind.

There has been no credible scientific research showing that some people are born with same-sex attraction. And, even if a "gay gene" were to be found, that does not mean homosexuality is virtuous, or that God created us to be that way. People are born with birth defects and other genetic abnormalities, a predisposition toward alcoholism, etc., but that does not mean they are good. We live in a fallen world, and have imperfect bodies with imperfect genes.

I believe we are probably past the point of no return concerning our society's acceptance of homosexuality (Heaven help us all), but we must still be faithful and not be afraid to call homosexuality what it is--a sin--even if we are part a very small minority that is willing to do so. This applies to all sins, not just homosexuality. The reason homosexuality seems to have so much attention directed toward it is because no other sinful behavior has such a well-funded, well-organized, well-strategized, and successful movement behind it that is focused on getting the behavior not only legitimized and written into law, but also silencing any contrary views and indoctrinating our children a positive view of homosexuality, starting in Kindergarten.

When people in a supposedly free society are afraid to call something wrong that IS wrong, for fear of backlash from the politically-correct, elitist, thought police, that's scary! We are not moving toward enlightenment, but toward facism.

Saturday, April 7, 2007

Proposed Bill Protects Road Map From Being Defaced

The new Iowa road maps are being widely distributed across the state, but to mixed reviews. It is not accuracy or readability issues that have some people up in arms, but the pictures of Governor Culver and Lt. Governor Judge on the back of the map. Some citizens, upset with all the socialistic bills the Governor has signed this year, don't think they should have to have pictures of him and his lieutenant in their cars.

In response to reports that some motorists are blotting out, or otherwise covering up or defacing (no pun intended) these pictures, Senator Mike Connolly (D-Dubuque) has sponsored bill SF 590 which would make it a serious misdemeanor for anyone to "mark, cover, or otherwise alter" these pictures.

In a rare display of dissent in the Senate Democratic caucus, and a refreshing development for proponents of less government intrusion in the lives of citizens, Senator Frank Wood (D-Scott) has filed an amendment (S-3300) which would allow marking or covering of the pictures, as long as it doesn't bleed through the map. Explaining the reason for his amendment, Wood said, "I don't think the climate is such in Iowa that residents are ready for the government to tell them they cannot cover a picture on a road map." Investigation by this blogger has uncovered the fact that Wood's district is the one most affected by bleed through (see graphic above). Connolly has vowed to have the amendment ruled not germane to the bill when it comes to the floor for debate. Senator Roger Stewart (D-Jackson), whose district is very close to the reverse side of the pictures, is considering offering an amendment to the amendment which would also prohibit tearing the pictures off the map.

Senator Herman Quirmbach (D-Story) filed amendment S-3301, which would change the penalty in the proposed bill from a misdemeanor to a Class D Felony. Explaining the reasoning behind his amendment, Quirmach stated, "Once you allow defacing of one official state document, where does it end? We must send a strong message that we will not tolerate having our state publications defaced by political dissenters." On a related note, Quirmbach revealed that next week he plans to introduce a bill that would make possession of any book, magazine, document, or other publication that contains unfavorable references to homosexuality, gender identity, or related sexual behavior an aggravated misdemeanor.

***OK, calm down! It's political satire, people! I find myself having to add these disclaimers because there are some people who think something like the above (and the previous post about this blog being locked) is not out of the realm of possibility, given the laws we have already seen passed this session!***

Friday, March 30, 2007

Blog Closed by Executive Order

Fellow Iowans:
I regret to inform you that, due to its homophobic content, I have instructed my newly created WSM (Welcoming Speech Ministry) to lock this blog to prevent further posts by its owner. The authority for me to do this comes from the new "Fair Speech" law, which is Iowa Code Section, uh, well, we haven't actually passed that law yet, but it is coming down the pike. However, due to the hateful and bigoted nature of this blog, I cannot wait for a technicality in order to enforce this law. I'm sure you agree.

Recent polls show that 59% of Iowans believe this kind of intolerant and offensive speech should be stopped at all costs. 11 other states have taken such action against blog posters, and it is time for Iowa to do so also. I know you share my concern that someone might be offended because some intolerant religious fanatic thinks freedom of speech means he can publicly say that homosexuality is immoral. That's just wrong and we're not going to allow it in this state!

Now, I'm going to ask for your help to make Iowa (and the Internet) an even more welcoming place. Our new WSM only has a staff of 150 and a budget of $32 million, so we are going to need the cooperation of every Iowan. If you see a blog, or other website, that you can determine is based in Iowa which portrays any of the following behaviors (real or perceived) in any way that is not positive--gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, transexual, transvestite, cross dressing, gender identity, questioning, etc.--please bring it to our attention immediately. E-mail the offensive link to, and the problem will be "resolved" within 24 hours.

Thank you for your participation. As a result of your effort, Iowa will be a safer and more welcoming place for all people.


Note: If you are a minor, you are welcome to be a part of this important effort. Be assured that if your parents are jailed for their hate speech, you will be placed in a good, loving home where you won't have to worry about having antiquated, intolerant religious beliefs forced down your throat.

***NOTE - The above is fiction now, but could become reality in the near future if we allow the liberals to continue to take us further in the direction they have been taking us since assuming total control of the Iowa Statehouse***

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Danielson Tells a Citizen He Has Hate in His Heart

This is an excerpt from the legislative forum held March 10, 2007. There is too much misinformation and propaganda in this video to address it all here, but let me hit on a couple of points:

-Danielson said there is a "whole host of enumerated traits" in the Fourteenth Amendment. There are no enumerated traits in the Fourteenth Amendment. The framers wanted the rights to apply equally to everyone, without carving out certain categories of people more worthy of protection than others. You would think a legislator charged with upholding the Constitution, and who bases his votes on the Constitution, would at least know what it says!

-Senator Dotzler's comment that an employer could fire an employee who didn't adhere to a dress code was technically right, but didn't address the specific question. An employer could have a dress code prohibiting employees from wearing dresses/skirts, makeup, etc. But if he allowed the female employees to wear them, he could not prohibit the males from also wearing them.

I would like to see more Republicans/conservatives/Christians attend these forums, rather than have 90%+ of the audience be liberal Democrats, and 90%+ of those be from the education establishment.

Thursday, March 22, 2007

It's GAYLA Week at Wartburg!

Wartburg College, in Waverly, Iowa, is holding its 2nd Annual Gayla Week. Wartburg is afflliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), a liberal denomination that is becoming even more liberal, abandoning God's word in the process. A spokesman from Wartburg once told me that Wartburg is not a Lutheran college, but a college operated by the Lutheran Church. Huh? In any case, I think Martin Luther would grieve that such a college is being operated by a denomination that was founded based on his teachings.

What concerns me perhaps more than the "Drag In The City Cabaret Show" is how the Waterloo Courier reports on one of the celebration's speakers. Story here. Notice how the word "homophobia" is used without quotes and without identifying it as the opinion of the author (neither the author being reported on nor the author of the Courier piece). In other words, the Courier's objectivity (and that of most other media) is out the window on this issue.

I have known for quite some time that the media, in general, is helping to advance the homosexual agenda but, for some reason, when I read that article it really sank in. When you see it happening in your local paper, it really hits home.

They just throw the word out there like any normal and rational person would accept that 1) there is a condition called "homophobia", 2) it is a widespread problem in this country, and 3) anyone identified as a "homophobe" should be punished and/or sent for "sensitivity" training. You might think that "homophobia" would mean "fear of homosexuals" or "fear of homosexuality", but you would be wrong. The way that homosexual activists and their allies define a "homophobe" is anyone who doesn't accept that homosexuality is normal and morally equal to the sexual relationship between a married man and woman.

I know it seems that I focus on this subject a lot, but I consider it to be the greatest threat to our religious freedom that we face. Not only that, but the children in the public schools will be indoctrinated (ARE being indocrinated) with pro-homosexual beliefs This means that, within a generation, we could live in a culture where the vast majority of people consider homosexual behavior to be normal, natural, moral, and equivalent (if not superior) to heterosexual relations. And anyone who dares to say homosexual acts are sinful will not only be called names like "homophobe", religious fanatic, hateful, and bigoted. They will also be considered ignorant throwbacks to an era when people were unenlightened on this matter. They will be seen not only as intolerant, but dangerous.

To be honest, I think we have lost the battle to prevent the normalization and acceptance of homosexuality, unless God miraculously intervenes. But that doesn't mean that we have to go quietly! I pray that God will raise up a legion of pastors, as well as Christian leaders and laymen, who have the boldness to stand for His word. We should show love and compassion toward all, but we should not stand by silently while sin--any sin--is being written into law by giving a protected class status to those who practice it.

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Am I my brother's....wife?!

Here is more vindication for those of us who warned that considering homosexual behavior to be a civil right would be a slippery slope that would lead to calls for legal recognition of other aberrant sexual behaviors (i.e., sexual relations other than between one man and one woman in marriage). Critics accused us of using fear tactics when we asked what would prevent polygamists from making the case that their civil rights were being violated. Homosexual activists dismissed those claims as the rantings of "homophobes". However, we are now seeing polygamists pushing for their "civil rights" based on the gains made by homosexuals.

Now comes something even more insidious that I have also been warning people about. Once we normalize homosexuality, where do you draw the line? Homosexual acitivists who try to shoot down arguments against same-sex "marriage" will say that the line should be drawn by limiting it to two people who are in love and want to share their lives together. OK, let's run with that. But now we have a case of a incestuous relationship. A brother and sister are living in a sexual relationship and have borne children. Chuck Colson reports on this case in his column today, entitled Saw This One Coming.

When the German government found 0ut about the relationship, they took away three of the couple's four children, and jailed the father/brother/husband for incest. Now, the couple is challenging the law in Germany's Federal Constitutional Court. Some of the arguments the couple is making sound eerily familiar:

"this law is out of date, and it breaches the couple's civil rights"

"couple [is] not harming anyone"

the ban "is discrimination"

"Why are disabled parents" or "people with hereditary diseases [and] women over 40" allowed to have children? (this in response to the argument that incest produces children at a higher risk to be born with a disability)

Do you recognize any of those arguments? They have all been made in the push for same-sex "marriage" in this country. The homosexual equivalent to the last argument is how they respond when it is held that one reason for marriage being only between one man and one woman is because that union can produce children, while same-sex "marriage" will not. They will ask, "If that is the case, then why are opposite-sex couples allowed to marry who, for whatever reason, will never be able to have kids?"

How will the homosexual activists respond to a couple who says it is their civil right to have an incestuous relationship? How can they say incest (or polygamy, or anything else for that matter) is wrong? Will they affirm family members being married to one another, or will they further try to refine the definition of marriage, but not so narrowly that it excludes them?

This is happening in Germany now, but we are fooling ourselves if we think it won't eventually come to our shores, especially when the US Supreme Court relies on laws and decisions in foreign countries to arrive at their decision.

This is just one more reason why you should contact your legislator and ask them to vote against adding "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to Iowa's civil rights code.

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

That's gay!

I don't advocate the use of that phrase in a derogatory manner; I just want to say it while I still can! There is a movement in this country (which, like usual, is starting in California) to ban that phrase in schools.

The vast majority of students who use the phrase don't use it as a derogatory slur toward homosexuals, but rather in place of a phrase like, "That's lame" or "That's silly". However, the thought police in at least one school--and there will be others--have decided that the use of that phrase constitutes "sexual harassment" and is therefore a serious enough offense that they suspended a fourth-grade student for saying it. Read story here.

I wonder if the administrators at that school would suspend a student for making a derogatory statement about Christians? Somehow I doubt it. The radar of the speech Nazis seems to only pick up on words that are perceived to be derogatory toward "gays".

This type of infringement of free speech rights is just one of the reasons many of us opposed Iowa's "Bully Bill". Many schools in Iowa will no doubt ban the phrase "That's gay" or "That's so gay". I know this because one of the biggest arguments that was used for this law, and for bullying/harassment policies in the local school districts, is that "gay" students hear that phrase several times every day, and that constitutes bullying or harassment. This from a study commissioned by GLSEN that is trotted out at every opportunity, and is the foundation on which many state lawmakers and school board members based their decision to support a bullying/harassment policy that would include "sexual orientation".

Click here to visit the NEA (National Education Association)

Monday, March 19, 2007

Character-building message acceptable...unless the messengers happen to be Christian

This story is about a week old, but I felt it important to cover it anyway, in case you hadn't heard about it from another source. It seems that now we have gotten to the point that not only can't a Christian group come into a school to give a religious message, they can't even come in and give a secular message! This according to a recent editorial in the Ames Tribune, written in response to the appearance of the Power Team at Ames Middle School.

This view was shared by Iowa state Representative, Beth Wessel-Kroeschell, who claims to be a Christian, but says, "we would not endorse this interpretation of Christianity." What "interpretation" of Christianity is that, Representative? Biblical Christianity? She also said, "not every family attending the Ames Middle School is a Christian. This assembly definitely verges on a civil rights violation."

Wow! A civil rights violation?! That's pretty serious! Explain to me again, Representative, how bringing a positive, character-building, non-religious message "verges on a civil rights violation"? I think I can say with some certainty that you won't see a "civil rights violation" when the homosexual agenda is shoved down the students' throats. After all, didn't you vote for the "Bully Bill", which will do just that?

The Tribune made the statement that, "(Superintendent) Beyea is right in that the schools do have enough on their hands just fulfilling their own mission." you suppose they would say that if the object of controversy was an assembly bringing a message of tolerance for homosexuality conducted by GLSEN, GLBT Youth in Iowa Schools Task Force, or a school's Gay-Straight Alliance? Not likely! You see, such platitudes are only applicable when the secular left disagrees with your position. They have no problem finding a place for indoctrination they support.

Friday, March 16, 2007

More on Deerfield High

In response to a poster (thanks, Activist Scott), here is more info concerning the story I blogged about in my previous post. Story here. It appears that the panel is part of a mandatory class that all freshmen are required to take.

This is just one of many examples I could post where students are being indoctrinated with homosexual behavior. Unless something changes radically, and soon, we will see this happening more and more.

There has been a huge cultural shift in this country in the last few years. It is now virtuous to proclaim your homosexuality, and it is noble to help promote the homosexual agenda. Perhaps, people who missed out on the civil rights movement of the 60's see this as a similar cause (it is NOT) that they can latch onto and feel like they are making the world a better, more "tolerant" place.

Thursday, March 15, 2007

Don't tell....don't tell!

Parents of students at one Illinois high school were shocked to learn that, not only did the school require their 9th-grade kids to attend mandatory Gay-Straight Alliance panel discussions about the homosexual experiences of upperclassmen, but also required the students to sign a confidentiality agreement saying they wouldn't tell anyone about the discussions, including their parents! Read story here.

This is a blatant disregard of parental rights, and one reason many of us fought the "Bully Bill". Once "sexual orientation" is written into a school district's policy, the district will feel obligated to indoctrinate kids about the homosexual lifestyle, under the guise of promoting "understanding and tolerance".

If the proposed bill that would add "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to the state's civil rights code passes, this kind of mandatory indoctrination will move from the schoolhouse to many other areas of our lives. Let your legislator know you oppose adding these categories to our civil rights law

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Homosexuality is a civil right?

Tomorrow is designated "Civil Rights Lobby Day" at the Iowa Capitol by the groups pushing the homosexual agenda. Wake up folks! Our rights and liberties are fading away with each new piece of legislation that writes homosexuality (specifically "sexual orientation" and "gender identity") into law. Schools are indoctrinating students into this lifestyle without giving parents an opportunity to opt their kids out. Employees who don't accept the celebration of homosexuality are being disciplined and fired. Public officials who say homosexual acts are immoral are attacked, and their resignation is often demanded. And it will only get worse.

If this law passes, employers will be unable to prevent male employees from dressing and making themselves up to look like females, churches and other religious institutions will be forced to hire individuals who--contrary to the beliefs of the institution--are in the homosexual lifestyle (with the only exception being for positions that have "bona fide" religious qualifications), and public establishments may be required to provide a third (or fourth) restroom for those who claim a different sexual identity than that with which they were born.

If you are opposed to making homosexuality a civil right, and all that will result from that, contact your legislator as soon as possible. The bill in question is SF427 / HF603.

Sunday, March 11, 2007

Bite tongue, engage brain before speaking

At a forum for Black Hawk County legislators held yesterday at the AEA 267 building, State Senator Jeff Danielson lost his cool, telling a citizen at the microphone that he (the citizen) had "hate" in his heart. What brought forth such a strong judgment from Danielson? The constituent merely asked how a proposed bill that Danielson supports would affect his business.

The bill would add "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to the list of protected classes in the state's civil rights code. The business owner questioned what he would be able to do if a male employee decided to come to work dressed as a female. He also wondered if such a person would have to be allowed to use the women's restroom, or if a third (or fourth) restroom would need to be added to accommodate men who define themselves as female (and possibly women who define themselves as male)?

Among the several inaccurate and/or disingenuous comments made in response to the questions the business owner asked, one of the most blatant was the statement by Danielson that the Fourteenth Amendment "basically guarantees equal protection under the law for a whole host of enumerated traits". Someone needs to tell the senator that 1) "Sexual orientation" and "gender identity" are not "traits", 2) the Fourteenth Amendment has no "enumerated traits", but rather says "any person", and 3) the proposed law would actually be in violation of the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as it provides greater protection to some people than it does to others.

It is sad to think that a person with a Bachelor's Degree in Public Administration, a Master's Degree in Public Policy, and who is serving as the President Pro Tempore of the Iowa State Senate, does not have an accurate understanding of this important amendment to our Constitution, especially when it will influence how he votes on laws. He stated at the meeting that he took an oath of office to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America". How can he do that if he doesn't even know what the Constitution and its Amendments say?

Or, do you suppose he really does know, but assumes his constituency is too ignorant to know?

I'll write more on this issue in coming days.

Saturday, March 10, 2007

Friday, March 9, 2007

Why wait until the last minute to implement a bad bill?

Unable to wait until the September 1 deadline Iowa school districts have to comply with the "Bully Bill" he signed into law earlier this week, an excited Governor Chet Culver demonstrates on a Waterloo elementary school child how he would protect students from bullies. The governor did not indicate if hard hats were to be issued to all students, or only students falling in one of the categories enumerated in the law.

Thursday, March 8, 2007

Not to further muddy the waters, but...

John Cox is a long-shot candidate, but one who also deserves a look from conservatives. I've been impressed every time I have heard him talk. I think I am on the same page with him on just about all the issues.

Wednesday, March 7, 2007

More From San Diego "Pride" Parade...If You Can Handle It

I wanted to share a bit more about the parade I mentioned in the previous post, so you can fully appreciate what these kids will be exposed to. Here is a description from their own website at

"The Pride Parade is a powerful display of diversity, acceptance and celebration. Thousands of Parade participants move with flamboyant splendor on the mile long route with their gay banners waving above the exuberant caravan of lavish floats, drag mavens in fancy duds, dykes on bikes and gay-friendly politicians, sponsors, and civic organizations. Over three hours, the streets of Hillcrest burst with colorful displays of pride amid music and dancing emanating from the 200 parade contingents. 150,000 enthusiastically cheering spectators lining the Parade route, the Pride Parade is a highlight of the Celebration."

School Proud to March in Homosexual Parade

The San Diego Cooperative Charter School, a K-8 school, is participating in that city's annual parade of homosexual depravity. Despite pleas from a group of parents, as well as the fact that a lot of immoral behavior is displayed in the parade that kids ought not to see, the school has refused to reconsider its position, and the San Diego school board has refused to intervene.

Read story here.

More and more schools are going beyond just promoting "tolerance" of students who are different, and are becoming advocates for the homosexual agenda. And they are refusing parents the right to opt their kids out of such indoctrination. The only option for concerned parents is homeschooling or private school, though even private schools are also starting to be forced to promote the homosexual lifestyle (see Iowa's "Bully Bill", signed into law by Governor Culver on March 5, 2007).

It would seem that, with the educational system in the shambles it is, they would focus on what is supposed to be the purpose of public education in the first place--to teach our kids academic subjects--not to promote an agenda that the majority of Americans have a problem with. When did the educational system decide it was going to be an agent for social change? Oh, yeah, maybe when it was taken over by the NEA (National Education Association).

An excellent commentary (mp3 audio) on the homosexual agenda can be found on Jan Mickelson's show of this past Monday, March 5, 2007. The commentary starts about 32 minutes into the program. "Mickelson in the Morning" is broadcast on WHO Radio - 1040 on your AM dial , out of Des Moines, Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. local time.

Monday, March 5, 2007

Bully For You, Governor!

Amid much fanfare, surrounded by a crowd of the usual suspects, Governor "Big Lug" Culver signed the "Bully Bill" into law today at Valley High School in West Des Moines. Story here. I think it no coincidence that this is the school where the propaganda play "The Laramie Project" was performed recently.

This bill was never about bullying, but about using the power of the state to force citizens to not only tolerate homosexual behavior, but to affirm it. If it was really about preventing bullying of all students, as opposed to advancing the homosexual agenda, they would have left out the categories and required that school district policies cover ALL students. Couple this with the fact that school districts already had all the tools they needed to prevent bullying, and the fact that there are no enforcement "teeth" in this law, and you will realize that it is about writing homosexuality into the state code as a protected behavior. And this is just the first step. Stay tuned for breaking developments!

In discussion with liberals, you will often hear them accuse conservative Christians of "trying to shove their morals" down everyone else's throats. But let's assess the situation. Are we the ones who are trying to change the standards? No! It is the liberals, in this case specifically relating to homosexuality, who are trying to change the norm.

Until recently, everyone knew homosexuality was sinful. To recognize those who practice it as a class to be defined and protected by law, and for same-sex marriage and civil unions to be recognized in this society, is something that couldn't have been imagined just a few short years ago. And now, it is being forced upon us. And those of us who just want to maintain the values we have always had in this culture--indeed, in the entire civilization--are somehow the villains. Right has become wrong, and wrong has become right in this morally corrupt society in which we live today.

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
The New King James Version. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1982, S. Is 5:20

Saturday, March 3, 2007

Big Brother is Coming Closer to Home (literally!)

You may or may not be aware of a bill introduced in the statehouse known as Senate File 210. What this bill does is provide for home visits to every home in the state with a newborn child. According to the bill, "The components of the home visit shall include but are not limited to assessing the child's home environment*, educating the families concerning newborn children, and assisting families in accessing appropriate services." Read the bill here: SF 210

The wording of this bill seems to indicate that it is voluntary at this point, but how long would it be before it would be mandatory? And even if it remains voluntary, is this an additional role that we want our government to assume, using our tax dollars? The visits would be coordinated by the "Iowa Empowerment Board".

Couple this with the push for preschool for every 3-, 4-, and 5-year-old who is not in kindergarten, as well as raising the compulsory age for high school students, and you can see the state wants more and more time to indoctrinate our kids. The State is literally trying to make sure they control every aspect of our life, from cradle to grave (or womb to tomb, if you prefer).

*I wonder whose standards will be used to "assess the child's home environment"?

Friday, March 2, 2007

A sad commentary on our society.

I happened to see a portion of Anna Nicole Smith's funeral while working out at the gym. In a lavish procession that seemed more fitting for a head of state than the star of a reality show, her body was taken to its final resting place

Despite living an immoral lifestyle, Anna was idolized by many. At her funeral, some in the crowd even shouted, "Anna! Anna! We love you!", as her body passed by.

The cable news networks have covered the Anna Nicole Smith story virtually wall-to-wall, 24/7 ever since she died. It is no wonder that more people know who she is than who the vice president of our country is!

What is it about celebrities--even ones that lead an immoral lifestyle--that draws people like moths to a flame, and makes them crave the type of media coverage given to Anna Nicole? Are these celebrities the kind of people we should be looking up to as role models? Exactly what is it about Anna that makes her so admirable to so many? Was it her wealth, her looks, or the fact that she lived life on her own terms--without much concern about right or wrong?

My guess is that it is the last choice. Man is rebellious by nature. Submission and obedience do not come easily for us. By nature, we want to live our lives as we choose, without anyone setting any rules or boundaries for us. When we see someone who has lived her life that way, many find it admirable.

I think it is a sad commentary that so many people are so obsessed with celebrities, when they could be focusing that time and effort on their own lives and being concerned with worthy causes and with real people in their own communities who would benefit from their efforts.

What I'm saying is that we should live in our own reality, not that of some self-obsessed, egotistic "celebrity" who is more fantasy than reality. If more people would spend as much time working on the details of their own lives as they do wanting to know every detail of a celebrity's life, our society would be much better off.

Thursday, March 1, 2007

Huckabee just might have a chance...

Is Mike Huckabee now a "top-tier" presidential candidate? Read the article at the link below and decide.

Congressman says Huckabee a top-tier GOP candidate

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

More on Romney...

Click the link below:

Romney no Ronald Reagan, says veteran campaigner

Mitt Romney -- Pro-life or Pro-abortion?

At the link below is a video of Romney in a debate during the 2002 governor's race in Massachusetts.

Romney on Abortion - 2002

He certainly makes it clear he would vigorously defend a woman's "right to choose", and distances himself from any kind of pro-life affiliation. Can we trust his alleged pro-life position now?

On another front, is Mitt Romney responsible for gay marriage in Massachusetts? Many people think so.

Family group: Mitt Romney chose 'gay' marriage
Activist says Massachusetts court admits it couldn't force change

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Coming soon to a school near you...

Please read the article below. The sad thing is that churches and parents are largely silent on this issue.

MD school district creates furor with sex-ed program

Read more here:

Neutral Unisex Bathroom Created for Cross-dressing Student

1984 is closer than you think

Please read the story at the link below:

Man files lawsuit claiming harassment based on sexual orientation

I don't know what the true facts are in this case, but the below statement is what concerns me the most.

"He also is asking that Emco be ordered to undergo sensitivity training and to remove supervisors who engaged in harassment."

You see, it is not enough that someone is punished for a wrongdoing. They also want the offenders to be sent off to a re-education camp, so they will be taught to think like the State wants them to think.

It is a scary thing when not only is behavior punished, but "wrong" thoughts are punished as well. This is why many of us were opposed to the "Bully Bill", "Hate Crimes" legislation, etc. These laws are not about protecting homosexuals, but rather forcing the rest of us to accept homosexuality.

Monday, February 26, 2007

Homosexual Indoctrination in Schools

With the passage of SF 61 (the "Bully Bill"), you will start to see kids indoctrinated into thinking that homosexuality is just as valid and normal as heterosexuality. Click on the link below to see how this is starting to happen, with parents not having the opportunity to opt their kids out of such "teaching". With SF 61, even Christian schools in Iowa are not immune. It seems the only way to escape this is to homeschool your kids.

Judge orders 'gay' agenda taught to Christian children.

I would like to gather information about any instances of the religious freedom or freedom of speech rights of Christian students being violated. If you know anyone who has kids in public schools, please ask them to ask their kids to let them know if they observe such things happening. The only way to wake people up on this issue is with real-life examples from local schools.

All he wanted to do was have some fun...

Self-described "pro-life" Democrat Brian Quirk (House District 15) did an about face on his position on the "Clone and Kill" bill last week after receiving a phone call from rocker Sheryl Crow. Representative Quirk had reportedly told several of his constituents, as well as his priest, that he would vote against the bill. After hearing from Miss Crow, however, he changed his mind.

Quirk said it was not the call from Crow that changed his mind, but the pleas at the hearing last Wednesday night from people looking for "hope" in finding cures for various maladies afflicting them or their loved ones. However, Quirk had surely heard those types of pleas over and over prior to the hearing; the new variable was the call from Crow, during which, according to reliable sources, she promised to make an appearance during his next campaign, in exchange for his vote on this bill.

C'mon, Brian, we're not stupid! Do you really expect us to believe just hearing more of the same kinds of pleas changed your mind, and getting a call from an attractive female rock star had no influence on you? Those of us out here who are male aren't buying it.

If it was truly the testimonies at the hearing that changed your mind, perhaps it wouldn't have been changed if you and the rest of your Democrat colleagues had been in chamber for the first 1 1/2 hours of the hearing, when most of the opponents of the bill spoke. Or maybe that was when Sheryl called, and you put her on speaker phone in a conference room so the rest of your caucus members could listen in. I guess that's more fun than sitting in a hearing listening to constituents speak the truth.

Sunday, February 25, 2007

"Education and Outreach Specialist" to be hired to enforce the new "Safe Schools" law

The day after the Bully Bill passed, the "GLBT Youth in Iowa Schools Task Force" had already e-mailed notification of a new position that was created to make sure the law is enforced. Note the fact that, even though there are 19 categories of students enumerated in the bill, only LGBT youth are mentioned in the job description, and in the e-mail below:

"In combination with the passage of this legislation, I am pleased to announce that our Task Force has made a commitment to help implement the new law through the hire of a full-time Education and Outreach Specialist. This new staff person will help implement the Safe Schools Law through training and professional development to school districts and education organizations, including raising public awareness about LGBT youth throughout Iowa."

This organization is called "Iowa Safe Schools", and they say their goal is to make schools safe for "all" students, but the only group of students they ever talk about are LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered) students.

Doris Kelley...This is representing her constituents?

Representative Doris Kelley (House District 20) has said both publicly, and in private e-mails, that she was going to vote according to what her constituents wanted. In fact, here is a statement from an e-mail she sent to one of her constituents in regard to SF162, the "Clone and Kill" bill:

"While I am supportive, my vote will be based on constituent feedback. I am here to represent District 20 and not my personal beliefs."

Interestingly enough, according the poll she conducted on her website concerning the "Bully Bill" (SF61), 60% of her constituents were against the bill. Yet, she voted in favor of it. Could it have anything to do with the fact that she received several $1,000 contributions (and several more ranging from $100 to $500) from out-of-state homosexual activists?

Now, I know online polls are not scientific, but she is the one who claimed she was going to use it as a method of determining where her constituents are on the issues. She should either keep her word, or eliminate the online poll.

You somewhat expect this at the federal level, but it is a disgrace to have state politicians receiving money from out-of-state special interests, then voting as those special interests demand, rather than representing their constituency. It is an outrage to think that rich, out-of-state contributors are buying the votes of our legislators in Des Moines. And Rep. Kelley is not the only one. So far, we have identified at least three other Democrats who have received contributions from this same group of people.

See Atlantic Monthly Online article: They Won't Know What Hit Them

"Big Lug" or "Big Bully"?

Apparently, the governor called some "pro-life" Democrats into his office last week and twisted their arms, because they were leaning toward voting against the "Clone and Kill" bill. It is unfortunate that the "Bully Bill" that was recently passed doesn't also apply to the governor!

Friday, February 23, 2007

H.R. 254 - "Hate Crimes" Bill

The U.S. Congress is anticipated to vote soon on a new "hate crimes" bill. Please read about it at the link below, then contact your congressman and ask him to oppose it.

Federal Hate Crimes Law & Pending Legislation

Thursday, February 22, 2007

SF 162 Passes...Also SF 61

Well, the vote is in, and SF 162, the "Clone and Kill" bill, has passed the House 52-46, with 2 absent or not voting. No doubt tomorrow you will hear the spin in the news coverage of this bill's passage (refer to my previous post). Here's an example of what you can expect: Rep. Lisa Heddens, the floor manager for the bill, in her closing comments said, "If you are voting no on this bill, the message that you are saying is that you do NOT support the ban on human reproductive cloning, and you don't support the treatment of cures for Iowans".

On another note, the house also passed SF 61, the "Bully Bill", which will force school districts to adopt a policy dictated by the state that enumerates certain categories of students, including sexual orientation, who are more deserving of protect from harassment and bullying than other students. This is nothing more than a back door attempt to indoctrinate our school children with the belief that homosexuality is just another lifestyle choice, rather than being the sinful behavior that it is. Anyone who expresses a contrary view will be punished and sent off to re-education camp.

Not only will religious schools not be exempt from this law, but the House amendment which said the bill "shall not be construed to inhibit the teaching or consideration of doctrinal matters" was stripped out of the bill in the Senate. At stake here is nothing less than our freedoms of speech and religion. A teacher in a Christian school that teaches homosexuality is a sin could be subject to disciplinary action under this law.

It is a sad day for Iowa. But let's not be discouraged...let's get mad! Tell all your like-minded friends every chance you get what is going on. And be sure to find out how your legislator voted on this bill, and be sure to let him or her know how you feel about it!

The current majority can do a lot more irreversible damage in the next two years. It is important that ALL biblical Christians let our legislators know how we feel on the issues that are important to us!

Hearing on HF 287

I attended the hearing last night on House File 287 in the House chambers in the statehouse in Des Moines. HF 287 would repeal the state's current ban on cloning, and would allow cloning and killing of human embryos for the purpose of research. As I write this blog, the senate version of the bill (SF 162) is being debated in the House.

There has been much misinformation put out about on this issue by proponents of the bill. Let me try to address some of this misinformation. The false claims are in blue, my responses in black.

Claim: We need this bill in order to allow life-saving embryonic stem cell research.

Truth: Embryonic stem cell research is already allowed in Iowa. Further, no cures have resulted from embryonic stem cell research, while over 70 diseases are being treated with adult stem cells.

Claim: This bill does not allow cloning of human embryos.

Truth: If that were the case, then why would they include in the bill a prohibition on implanting these created cells in the womb of a woman? It is because embryos would be created; anything else would not grow in a woman's womb, thus a prohibition would not be needed.
This bill does allow cloning. It repeals our current ban on cloning, and in its place bans only "reproductive cloning", which would supposedly prohibit implantation of a cloned embryo in a woman's womb. However, this ban is unenforcible, as there is no way to prove if a pregnant woman got pregnant naturally, or through the implantation of a cloned embryo.

Sunday, February 18, 2007


Welcome to the first post of my blog! This blog will be primarily geared toward Christians who hold a biblical worldview (hence the name "Activism by the Book"). The "activism" part is because my goal is to equip and encourage biblical Christians (and other like-minded individuals) to become actively involved in the civic arena.

There seems to be a growing sentiment these days that it is wrong for Christians to express their beliefs in the public square, and wrong for Christian politicians to let their beliefs influence how they vote on bills. This is fueled to a large degree by the ACLU, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and the mistaken notion that the Constitution actually contains the phrase "separation of church and state" (it doesn't). We have gone from our founders' desire to merely prevent the federal government from establishing a national denomination, like England had, to a country where it is thought to be wrong to have the Ten Commandments posted in a government building, wrong to allow student-led prayer before graduation or a football game, and wrong to have a cross on public property.

Anyway, I want to touch on the contention by some that it is wrong for Christian politicians to let their beliefs influence their decisions. I'm sure you have heard politicians say, "I personally feel abortion is wrong, but I don't feel I have the right to impose my morality on others". What nonsense!

First of all, if your faith isn't a big enough part of your life that it influences your decisions on issues, then it is probably inconsequential to you. Second, using the abortion example, try substituting other words for abortion. How about, "I personally feel murder is wrong, but I don't feel I have the right to impose my morality on others"? That argument quickly falls apart. Third, everyone has a worldview. A person's theological beliefs (what they believe about God) are the foundation of their worldview, and influence every other area. Have you ever heard someone suggest that an atheist should check their beliefs at the door? Of course not! Their theological beliefs influence their decisions. (Almost no politician would admit to being an atheist, but for all practical purposes that is how many of them live their lives--they are what has been called "practical atheists".)

Well, I think I have given you enough for the introductory post. I'm hopeful I have at least started you thinking that perhaps it is ok to bring a biblical worldview into the public square. In future posts, I will try to flesh this out, and provide more reasons why Christians should be more involved in politics. In addition, I will try to keep you up to date on proposed legislation on social issues in your government (primarily State of Iowa, but also the federal government to some extent), as well as what is going on in the culture--e.g., religious liberties being lost, etc.

One quick note, in case you decide to post a response on this blog. You are free to express whatever opinion you like, I only ask that you keep the language clean. I would like to keep this site G-rated.

Thank you, and enjoy the blog!