No laws against web pornography Thanks to the federal courts in Philadelphia and the Supreme Court, more than a decade has now passed since Congress first acted to protect children from Internet pornography, and there are still no enforceable laws that require persons who commercially distribute pornography on the Internet to take reasonable steps to restrict children's access to the material. --Robert Peters, as found at www.christiannewswire.com 3.26.07 and submitted by Muriel McConnon.
Thanks to Lucas and NLT (http://noleftturns.ashbrook.org) for bringing the reality of 34 years of abortions to public light. Lucas also refers to the excellent letter by Prof. Hadley Arkes published in the Wall Street Journal that criticized an editorial that downplayed the abortion issue in the presidential campaign. Unfortunately, that letter is not online… –excerpted from a posting by Richard Reeb at The Claremont Foundation website 5.21.07, read the entire article at The Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University website here
Some of the biggest cases of mistaken identity are among intellectuals who have trouble remembering that they are not God. —Thomas Sowell
The American Liberal Liberties Union
“ACLU Defends Nazi’s Right to Burn Down ACLU Headquarters,” the humor magazine The Onion announced in 1999. Those of us who loved the ACLU, and celebrated its willingness to defend the rights of Nazis and others who had no regard for our rights, considered the joke a compliment. Today it’s more like a reproach. Once the nation’s leading civil liberties group and a reliable defender of everyone’s speech rights, the ACLU is being transformed into just another liberal human-rights group that reliably defends the rights of liberal speakers.
This transformation is gradual, unacknowledged and not readily apparent, since evidence of it lies mainly in cases the ACLU does not take. It’s naturally easier to know what an organization is doing (and advertising) than what it is not doing. But a review of recent free-speech press releases turns up only a handful of cases in which ACLU state affiliates defended the rights of conservative, anti-gay, or otherwise politically incorrect speakers. And lately the national organization has been remarkably quiet in several important free-speech cases and controversies.
One of the clearest indications of a retreat from defending all speech regardless of content is the ACLU’s virtual silence in Harper v. Poway, an important federal case involving a high-school student’s right to wear a T-shirt condemning homosexuality. Of course, the ACLU doesn’t speak out on every case, but historically it has vigorously defended student speech rights, as its Web site stresses. It is currently representing a student in a speech case before the Supreme Court, Morse v. Frederick (involving the right of a student to carry a nonsensical “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” banner at an off-campus event). The ACLU pays particular attention to the right to wear T-shirts with pro-gay messages in school, proudly citing cases in which it represented students wearing pro-gay (as well as anti-Bush) T-shirts. This year, the ACLU awarded a Youth Activist Scholarship to a student who fought the efforts of her school to bar students from wearing T-shirts that said “Gay, Fine by me.”
So, in 2004, when Tyler Chase Harper was disciplined for wearing a T-shirt declaring his religious objections to homosexuality, civil libertarians might have expected the ACLU to protest loudly. Mr. Harper was barred from attending classes when he wore the anti-gay T-shirt to school on an official “Day of Silence,” when gay students taped their mouths to symbolize the silencing effect of intolerance. Represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, he sued the school district. That same year, the ACLU initiated the first of two actions against a Missouri school that punished students for wearing “gay supportive T-shirts,” eventually securing a promise from the school to “stop censoring,” the ACLU Web site boasts. Mr. Harper, however, was unsuccessful in his quest to stop school censorship. In a patronizing, anti-libertarian decision in which Judge Stephen Reinhardt stressed the imagined feelings of gay students, the Ninth Circuit rejected Mr. Harper’s First Amendment claims. (There was a sharp dissent from Judge Alex Kozinski.)
Perhaps the ACLU was observing its own prolonged Day of Silence, because, while it pays close attention to federal appellate court decisions on civil liberties, it effectively ignored this terrible precedent, even when Mr. Harper appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court dismissed the case as moot because Mr. Harper had graduated but took the unusual step of vacating the decision so that it no longer exists as precedent (no thanks to the ACLU). Mr. Harper’s younger sister, still in school, continued pressing his claims and her case is pending before the Ninth circuit. The ACLU has not adopted her cause either… –excerpted from an article by Wendy Kaminer in The Wall Street Journal 5.23.07
’10 Commandments’ Judge Roy Moore Says Pro-Homosexual Maryland Judge a Fool Trying to Wipe Out God’s Definition of Man/Woman Only Marriage
Judges like Baltimore Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdock are “trying to wipe out the definition of marriage which is an ordinance of God. And that’s what this whole thing is about,” according to the “10 Commandments” Judge Roy S. Moore, former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. Murdock has ruled in favor of homosexual “marriage.”
Moore made his remarks in an interview on “The American View” radio show (TheAmericanView.com) co-hosted by Michael Anthony Peroutka, the Constitution Party’s 2004 Presidential candidate, and John Lofton, a self- described “Recovering Republican…” –excerpted from a Christian Newswire Media Advisory, 5.22.07, as submitted by Muriel McConnon.
History, on religion’s terms
Petersburg, Ky. — Adam and Eve fall from grace and Noah survives an epic flood at a new museum that tells the Bible’s version of history on a theme-park scale.
But the scene near the front lobby might stop a paleontologist in his tracks: A pair of ancient children frolic just a few feet away from a group of friendly dinosaurs.
That exhibit, among others, has earned the Creation Museum notoriety among skeptics and anticipation from believers who are expected to pack its halls when it opens today… —excerpted from an AP article by Dylan T. Lovan that appeared in The Washington Times, 5.28.07, as submitted by Mark Zaveson. Read the entire article here