On 04/15/2008, I did a report on a Wisconsin High School student who made artwork in a High School class with John 3:16 in it and the cross and got a "0" grade for it. Below is a copy of what I reported on in April and then last on this email page is the successful victory for the student in the courts...:

From email on 04/15/2008:

".....ADF attorneys defend Wis. high school student facing religious discrimination-You all may have heard of this one. It made FoxNews and the Sean Hannity show on CNN and MSNBC. "The teacher cited a document that the student and all other students in the class had been required to sign at the beginning of the semester which prevented them from creating artwork with the prohibited depictions. After the teacher said that the student had "signed away his First Amendment rights," the student respectfully protested by tearing the signed document in half...Citing a policy prohibiting depictions of "blood, violence, sexual connotations, [or] religious beliefs," officials penalized a Christian student for his artwork depicting a Bible verse and a cross but did not penalize students who included demonic illustrations in their artwork."

Complaint filed with District Court-On 03/28/2008.

Picture of artwork that got a zero

Copies of artwork depicting demonic images created by other students in the class. Picture 1 and Picture 2.

Watch video of the attorneys Cable TV appearances here.- On FoxNews, CNN Sean Hannity show, and some MSNBC show. Now the links took a while to pull up. But this video didn't take as long as the others on google streaming. Click here for the CNN Sean Hannity show coverage of the story as the 2 lawyers on either sides discuss this.

For alternative to video here is a 10 minute discussion on Jerry Johnson Live available here."

Quick Update:

Wisconsin student wins settlement in "JOHN 3:16" drawing case-"the district will respect students' constitutional right to religious expression in their artwork."

A copy of the stipulated dismissal filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin: "Defendants have graded Plaintiff's landscape drawing assignment containing the cross and John 3:16...which was previously assigned a "zero" grade....Defendants agree to pay Plaintiff's attorneys' fees"-05/20/2008

But its not over till the voters say its over. See part 2 below...

Part 1:
Update on Marriage Case in California:

The Decision:

Here is 150 or so page opinion. I also found 3 hour video footage of the whole argument back in March from both sides online.

If you don't have time/expertise like I don't to read all pages here is decision in short. If I messed this up please forgive me. I just scrolled down till I found conclusions and then scrolled down to read a Dissenters opinion and bolded what I found most interesting. But feel free to view it yourself in its entirety and unbolded...

"A number of factors lead us to this conclusion. First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples; permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties that currently are imposed on married opposite-sex couples. Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples. Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples. Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects "second-class citizens" who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional."

The 4 Judges that have redefined marriage in the state of California at the expense of 4.6 million modern day voters and a Californian historical definition of marriage that this court also acknowledged that: "f]rom the beginning of California statehood, the legal institution of civil marriage has been understood to refer to a relationship between a man and a woman.": GEORGE, C. J., KENNARD, J.,WERDEGAR, J.,MORENO, J.

And the 3 that voted nay,
BAXTER, J.,CHIN, J.,CORRIGAN, J.

one vote from one judge makes the difference for millions of californians!!! Below is dissenters opinion by corrigan, j.

"...I, and this court, must acknowledge that a majority of Californians hold a different view, and have explicitly said so by their vote. This court can overrule a vote of the people only if the Constitution compels us to do so. Here, the Constitution does not. Therefore, I must dissent.......In Perez v. Sharp (1948) 32 Cal.2d 711, we struck down a law prohibiting interracial marriages. The majority places great reliance on the Perez court's statement that "the right to marry is the right to join in marriage with the person of one's choice." (Id. at p. 715.) However, Perez and the many other cases establishing the fundamental right to marry were all based on the common understanding of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. (See maj. opn., ante, at pp. 54-63.) The majority recognizes this, as it must. (Id. at p. 66.) Because those cases involved the traditional definition of marriage, they do not support the majority's analysis. The question here is whether the meaning of the term as it was used in those cases must be changed. What is unique about this case is that plaintiffs seek both to join the institution of marriage and at the same time to alter its definition. The majority maintains that plaintiffs are not attempting to change the existing institution of marriage. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 53.) This claim is irreconcilable with the majority's declaration that "[f]rom the beginning of California statehood, the legal institution of civil marriage has been understood to refer to a relationship between a man and a woman." (Id. at p. 23, fn. omitted.) The people are entitled to preserve this traditional understanding in the terminology of the law, recognizing that same-sex and opposite-sex unions are different. What they are not entitled to do is treat them differently under the law. The distinction between substance and nomenclature makes this case different from other civil rights cases. The definition of the rights to education, to vote, to pursue an office or occupation, and the other celebrated civil rights vindicated by the courts, were not altered by extending them to all races and both genders. The institution of marriage was not fundamentally changed by removing the racial restrictions that formerly encumbered it. Plaintiffs, however, seek to change the definition of the marital relationship, as it has consistently been understood, into something quite new. They could certainly accomplish such a redefinition through the initiative process. As a voter, I might agree. But that change is for the people to adopt, not for judges to dictate."-CORRIGAN, J.

But the voters in California already suspecting this outcome are not giving up see Part 2: (there is an amazing accomplishment they have recently accomplished and in the process of attempting to accomplish and also see more states that have done the same, it is not that easy to amend a state constitution and that is what is being attempted in California and already done in 26 other states and for those who agree that the definition of marriage is an important one see below from email sent out earlier today). You will see how many millions of voters it takes to override one judges vote when we could have just voted for one more judge that is not going to invent new definitions of words into law in the first place. If we the people want change then not only are presidents and congress important elections but judges are just as much. So pay attention to what kind of judges a candidate/congress will be likely to nominate/approve. Be sure they are consistent with your definition of words!!!
Part 2:

Part of the email sent out earlier today but put it here for context sake to continue from above:
"But check this out!!! Even if the California Supreme Courts deems the voters Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional check out what the voters have been up to for the past 5 months.

California Marriage Amendment Headed to Ballot-""The fact that we will turn in 1.1 million signatures is unprecedented, coming from the grassroots and the churches of this state...The amendment to the state constitution would protect marriage from the courts and the Legislature...The idea that California voters should be the ones to decide this is an idea that resonates with people."

www.protectmarriage.com-"Official web site of the California Marriage Protection Act"

America Votes to Protect Marriage-Check out the demographic graph of states that have already amended their constitutions. "In 2004, thirteen states passed constitutional amendments that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The measure received more votes than either presidential candidates, George W. Bush or John Kerry, in all but one state. Four other states had previously amended their constitutions, and two more passed marriage amendments in 2005. In August 2006, Alabama became the twentieth state to protect marriage with a constitutional amendment. Seven additional states passed constitutional amendments on November 7, 2006 (Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin). Arizona became the first state in which a marriage amendment did not pass—narrowly losing 49 percent to 51 percent. In an election year marked by victory for Democrats, the passage of seven of eight marriage amendments—27 overall—demonstrates that support for marriage transcends party affiliation." However, Arizona House just....

Ariz. House OKs amendment to ban same-sex marriage-"The current Arizona legislative proposal backed by social conservatives would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The 2006 version had that wording plus a provision that was widely interpreted as targeting civil unions and domestic partnerships."-05/12/2008

I am quite surprised the media hasn't itself focused as much attention on this subject as has Americans despite lack of media coverage!!!! It seems this would make for high ratings on national TV programs but oh yeah I forgot that this doesn't support liberal/progressive politics and we sure don't want conservative politics spreading to other states nor have any limelight in the public media so we will focus only on the negatives of our opponents that aren't so popular with Americans and hide our unpopular negatives. What was I thinking???

Other quick news blip which has been deemphasized in the media at the expense of Bushs' approval ratings:

Congress approval rating at an all time low-this came in one of my email updates from The Heritage Foundation. Approval rating lower then Bush job rating which you can find here. This is an interesting polling site so I will give its home page here. http://www.pollingreport.com/.

Lastly:

I was listening to this 30 minute program on TBN this morning as I was getting the kids ready for school and found it interesting enough to pas on quickly in this email at http://www.rodparsley.com/WatchNow.aspx.

Yanking Back the Balance/Filling in the Gaps/Emphasizing the Missing Headlines

"The Republican-led House's vote was mostly along party lines, with Democrats Jack Brown of St. Johns and Pete Rios of Hayden voting for the resolution. Tucson Republicans Pete Hershberger and Jennifer Burns voted against it."-Arizona Central commenting on how each party voted in the House in Arizona on this popular with American

"California's Defense of Marriage Act, the result of the Proposition 22 ballot initiative, states, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Sixty-one percent of California voters passed the measure in March 2000."

The constitutionality of what the voters passed in 2000 will be decided today at 10:00am.

And for the actual 3 hour argument from both sides please check out my email on 03/04/2008.

But check this out!!! Even if the California Supreme Courts deems the voters Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional check out what the voters have been up to for the past 5 months.

California Marriage Amendment Headed to Ballot-""The fact that we will turn in 1.1 million signatures is unprecedented, coming from the grassroots and the churches of this state...The amendment to the state constitution would protect marriage from the courts and the Legislature...The idea that California voters should be the ones to decide this is an idea that resonates with people."

http://www.protectmarriage.com/-"Official web site of the California Marriage Protection Act"

America Votes to Protect Marriage-Check out the demographic graph of states that have already amended their constitutions. "In 2004, thirteen states passed constitutional amendments that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The measure received more votes than either presidential candidates, George W. Bush or John Kerry, in all but one state. Four other states had previously amended their constitutions, and two more passed marriage amendments in 2005. In August 2006, Alabama became the twentieth state to protect marriage with a constitutional amendment. Seven additional states passed constitutional amendments on November 7, 2006 (Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin). Arizona became the first state in which a marriage amendment did not pass—narrowly losing 49 percent to 51 percent. In an election year marked by victory for Democrats, the passage of seven of eight marriage amendments—27 overall—demonstrates that support for marriage transcends party affiliation." However, Arizona House just....

Ariz. House OKs amendment to ban same-sex marriage-"The current Arizona legislative proposal backed by social conservatives would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The 2006 version had that wording plus a provision that was widely interpreted as targeting civil unions and domestic partnerships."-05/12/2008

I am quite surprised the media hasn't itself focused as much attention on this subject as has Americans despite lack of media coverage!!!! It seems this would make for high ratings on national TV programs but oh yeah I forgot that this doesn't support liberal/progressive politics and we sure don't want conservative politics spreading to other states nor have any limelight in the public media so we will focus only on the negatives of our opponents that aren't so popular with Americans and hide our unpopular negatives. What was I thinking???

Other quick news blip which has been deemphasized in the media at the expense of Bushs' approval ratings:

Congress approval rating at an all time low-this came in one of my email updates from The Heritage Foundation. Approval rating lower then Bush job rating which you can find here. This is an interesting polling site so I will give its home page here. http://www.pollingreport.com/.

Lastly:

I was listening to this 30 minute program on TBN this morning as I was getting the kids ready for school and found it interesting enough to pas on quickly in this email at http://www.rodparsley.com/WatchNow.aspx.

Yanking Back the Balance/Filling in the Gaps/Emphasizing the Missing Headlines

"The Republican-led House's vote was mostly along party lines, with Democrats Jack Brown of St. Johns and Pete Rios of Hayden voting for the resolution. Tucson Republicans Pete Hershberger and Jennifer Burns voted against it."-Arizona Central commenting on how each party voted in the House in Arizona on this popular with American voters amendment?

Another Update on NM Photographer case:

I hope this is the last update until it goes up further in the appeal process. I have been praying for this women and her partner that they would come to the Lord thru all this in some way and that in some way God would be glorified in this. I say this just to encourage you all to not only get a little upset but to handle this with passionate prayer for the lost and that God uses this for good like He did the cross and that we act like Christ did when He was persecuted for His religious beliefs!!!!

Quick update concerning my complaint of KOAT and KOBTV report from the 04-11-2008 AP report on there web sites on my prior email on this subject which you can find here. Check out the NEW MORE ACCURATE AP release on 04-14-2008 www.CBNnews.com entitled: "Human Rights Commission: Christian Discriminated against Lesbians"-"The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian organization that defends religious liberty"-04-14-2008. Much better!!!

Now, the facts:

The official 35 page briefing in defense of NM Photographer-Check out the Statement of Facts starting on page 3-7, And here is a key argument concerning motivation and quite enlightening..."At best, Willock has introduced direct evidence that Elane Photography does "not photograph same-sex weddings," Resp. Ex. B. at 5, but that does not inform the "ultimate issue" of the Company's motivation....Once a complainant establishes her prima facie case, that prima facie showing "may then be rebutted by evidence that the [complainant] was [refused service] based on a nondiscriminatory motivation."...Id. Here, both Jonathan and Elaine testified that they declined to photograph Willock's wedding-like, same-sex commitment ceremony because they refuse to use, and company policy prevents them from using, their talents and resources to promote a message with which they earnestly disagree, namely, that marriage can exist between anyone other than one man and one woman. Tr. at . Both Jonathan and Elaine testified that they did not refuse their Company's services because of Willock's "sexual orientation." Tr. at . In fact, they both acknowledged that they would offer their photography services to Willock or any other individual regardless of their sexual orientation, but they could not do so in the requested context of a wedding-like, same-sex commitment ceremony because of the message conveyed by that event. Tr. at . On the other hand, if Willock had asked Elane Photography to take pictures of her as part of, for example, individual portraits for a modeling portfolio, the Company would have been happy to provide its services in that context. In sum, then, Elane Photography's refusal to photograph Willock's ceremony was motivated by Jonathan's and Elaine's desire to refrain from furthering, promoting, or endorsing a same-sex "marital" relationship, and not from any soft of unlawful discriminatory animus. This is not some irrational, arbitrary, post-hoc justification for the Company's actions. Context and message are important to artists, and the legitimacy of Elane Photography's nondiscriminatory reason is demonstrated by a simple illustration. Suppose, for example, that a Ku Klux Klan..."-pg 16,17.

The Commission Opinion and Final Order-Documented Email conversation,
"17. On September 21, 2006, Ms. Willock contacted the website of Elane Photography to obtain information about its photographic services and pricing. Ms. Willock sent Elane Photography the following email inquiry: We are researching potential photographers for our commitment ceremony on September 15, 2007 in Taos, NM. This is a same-gender ceremony. If you are open to helping us celebrate our day we'd like to receive pricing information. Thanks [Testimony of Willock; Exhibit E at 1-2.] 18. Later on the same day, Ms. Elaine Huguenin gave the following response to Ms. Willock: Hello Vanessa, As a company, we photograph traditional weddings, engagements, seniors, and several other things such as political photographs and singer's portfolios. -Elaine— [Testimony of Willock and Elaine Huguenin; Exhibit 1; Exhibit E at 1, 3 & 43 19. Ms. Willock was not sure whether Ms. Elaine Huguenin's response meant that Elane Photography did or did not offer its services to same-gender couples arid sought clarification on November 28, 2006, as follows: Hi Elaine, Thanks for your response below of September 21, 2006. I'm a bit confused, however, by the wording of your response. Are you saying that your company does not offer your photography services to same-sex couples? Thanks, Vanessa [Testimony of Willock; Exhibit I; Exhibit E at 4.] 20. On November 28, Ms. Elaine Huguenin clarified her previous response to Ms. Willock in the following way: Hello Vanessa, Sorry if our last response was a confusing one. Yes, you are correct in saying we do not photograph same-sex weddings, but again, thanks for checking out our site! Have a great day. -Elaine"
Notice that she needed clarification 3 months later!!! Just a little odd...

"25. On November 29, 2006, Ms. Willock's partner, Ms. Collinswortb, formerly known as Ms. Pascottini, sought to verify Ms. Elaine Huguenin's refusal to photograph a same-sex ceremony by making a similar email inquiry about packages and rates to photograph a wedding, without any mention of same-sex. Ms. Collinsworth sent the following email to Elane Photography: Hi Elaine, I really like your photographs. I was wondering if you would be willing to travel to Ruidoso for my wedding? Can you send me a list of your packages and rates? Thanks!! [Testimony of Collinsworth; Exhibit E at 6.) 26. On November 29, 2006, Ms. Elaine Huguenin responded affirmatively by email to Ms. Collinsworth's inquiry and, at the same time, forwarded Ms. Collinsworth information about the company's photography pricing (base package, $1,450; deluxe package, $1,850; and royal package, $2,250), as well as information about the company's procedure for online proofing credits. The text of Ms. Elaine Huguenin's response to Ms. Collinsworth's inquiry was as follows: Hello Misty, Thanks so much for contacting us. I would definately [sic) be willing to travel to Ruidoso for your wedding. I have attached some information that should be helpful as far as prices and packages. There is also another attachment concerning "print credits" — it explains what online proofing is, because it's something that is a bit newer and not everyone may know what it is yet. Hopefully these items will help you sort some things out. Also, I would love to meet up with you sometime, if you are interested, to show you more of my recent book, along with an example of the "coffee table book" that included in all ofourpacicages. My place of choice is Satellite... Good luck with your planning, and I hope to talk with you soon -Elaine [Testimony of Collinsworth and Elaine Huguenin; Exhibit E at 7; Exhibit C & Exhibit E at 9; Exhibit D & Exhibit E at 10.] 27. On December 19, 2006, having not heard again from Ms. Collinsworth (then known as Misty Pascottini), Ms. Elaine Huguenin sent the following email to Ms. Collinsworth:
Hello Misty, I just wanted to check and see if you had any questions about the prices or packages that I could help answer. I hope that planning is going well for you. Have a great day! -Elaine [Testimony of Elaine Huguenin; Exhibit F at 8.]"

That's all the conversation that took place!!! Some how Vanessa Willock and her partner believed that Elaine had no other reason to not do photographs of there same-gender ceremony except for sexual orientation. It seems to me that if there is any discrimination going on here it would be: religious discrimination on the part of the Human Rights Commission (arbitrarily favouring one right over another)!!!!...This is a case of Religious Discrimination in the name of Sexual Orientation..."Gay rights have trumped religious rights in a New Mexico case."-04/14/2008 AP. I can understand maybe the confusion between Elaine and Vanessa in the email conversations but I have yet to agree with the Human Rights Commission Final Order and Opinion...

Here is an interesting commentary on this case:

The New Mexico Human Rights Commission Refuses to Consider Religious Freedom Objection:

The Breadth of the New Mexico Human Rights Commission's Rationale:

Photographers Denied the Freedom To Choose What They Photograph:
What does Bush have to do with all this:

Fighting religious discrimination: Bush administration's quiet campaign-"In education, for example, the DOJ reviewed 82 cases and conducted 40 investigations from 2001 to 2006. Compare this with the 1995-2000 time period, when the DOJ reviewed one case and made no investigations...As Judge Judy would say, these are real cases about real people. From attacks on houses of worship to incidents of discrimination at school and work, the DOJ over the past five years has investigated scores of cases involving the religious rights of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Native Americans and others."-When I read this I was reasoned, yep here is another one. I am hardly getting the whole story from ABC, CBS, NBC or PBS. Justifying the slogan below....

Yanking Back the Balance and Filling in the Gaps

P.S.-Concerning the media lack of coverage on these issues I wanted to submit a suggestion concerning motive of lack of coverage. And I do believe I have presented evidence of this unlike Vanessa and her partner. Not only is money and ratings a motive but may I submit that maybe just maybe liberal politics rooted in a liberal worldview is a big part of the pie, also, which highly favours one political party over another....

I always intend just to send a quick email but then I just can't help but to add a little and a little and a little until it is a little to much!!! :)

Take care all.

"When I watched him [former President Bill Clinton] at Mrs. King's funeral, I just have never seen anything like it....There are times when he sounds like Jesus in the temple. I mean, amazing ability to transcend ethnicity -- race, we call it, it's really ethnicity -- in this country and, and speak to us all in this amazingly primordial way."-MSNBC's Chris Matthews (Awarded "Quote of the year" at the 2008 Dishonors Awards)

Third update on Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Just in case you all missed the prior emails and for those who haven't but are interested in more related stories here we go:

In case you have heard of the controversy about an atheist being expelled from a prescreening of Expelled. Here is my comment. He hasn't been expelled from watching the movie. He's been invited. He just needs to come on the day he's invited like all the rest of us and get over it...April 18th!!!!!- Theatre locator here.

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/- for trailer and theatre information.

Ben Stein interviewed by Dobson on Focus on the Family radio program- Excellent interview that most have probabily heard but just in case you missed it here is another chance. Ben Stein is pro-life and makes some comments about Comedy Central and him wanting to send the money he won to the charity of his choice being the National Right to Life and how that was not favoured by producers of Comedy Central. Also, American Idol is doing shows for charity to fight aides I think, however, the donations are going to some charities that support ideals of International Planned Parenthood and we probably have a pretty good idea what they'll support!!!

The Expelled Chronicle- Stories like "Richard Dawkins crashes the party at a screening of "Expelled" and Breaking News: Iowa State Department Faculty Acknowledge ID Played Role in Gonzalez's Tenure Denial

The Expelled Playground -Some songs that were made as a songwriting contest for the movie.

Dr Richard Sternberg home page- web site of the Dr that is featured in the Expelled movie. "the OSC investigation concluded, "[i]t is... clear that a hostile work environment was created with the ultimate goal of forcing you out of the SI." SI short for Smithsonian Institution. "The Meyer paper underwent a standard peer review process by three qualified scientists, all of whom are evolutionary and molecular biologists teaching at well-known institutions."

Good News: Florida Senate Committee OKs Academic-Freedom Bill-"The Evolution Academic Freedom Act, which was approved 7-3 by the Senate Judiciary Committee, now moves to the full Senate." Yeah Florida!!!

Toward a Practical Theology of Peer Review-"Critics of creationism and Intelligent Design (ID) often note that creationist or ID research does not appear in peer-reviewed literature (e.g., Crawford 1982; Scott and Branch 2003; Max 2004; Bottaro et al. 2006). Creationists complain that we are excluded from the peer-reviewed literature (Anderson 2002; Kulikovsky 2008; see also Tipler 2004) and are therefore required to publish in our own peer reviewed-literature (Morris 2003). Critics view creationist peer review as not "real" peer review. For example, recent attempts to launch new creationist peer-reviewed journals have been met with scorn or dismissal (Sparks et al. 2007; Brumfiel 2008).The irony of this conflict over peer review is that peer review is poorly understood and criticized even in conventional journals." This paper provides an interesting biblical perspective on this process. Some may argue why a Practical Theology of Peer Review and why even get involved in the science debate. I think one of the most grandest responses to this objection can be made by a comment of Martin Luther, "If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the Word of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Him. Where the battle rages there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle front besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point."

Warning!!! Below are many run on sentences and missed puntuations!!
But please do skip thru this if this is intolerable to the 3rd update on indoctrinateu and don't miss the Michael Moore interview!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quick comment, however, is that there are many areas in which the enemy of Christ is at work and so we have to keep that in mind not just here in the sciences. But this is indeed one of the many. And remember that the fathers of many a scientific fields were christians but there has been a recent hijacking of creation since Darwin being redefined to anything but a creation and this is God's work we are discussing. So it is a major issue for it says in Revelations that "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.". Let's not take away the pleasure of God by allowing His work to be hijacked into some other gods' non-existent hands or into the hands of atheism!!!! Science is a moral issue if the above scripture is true!!!! So let us in love and by His grace "take it back" for His pleasure and look at creation in the light of His Truth as revealed in the scriptures that Christ upheld Himself with utmost authority. To not endeavor into this adventure is to allow the current status quo to remain which is not a very God honouring status quo thus I argue that creation science is justified so long as we don't forget that God came to earth to die for our sins and that is ultimately the only way back to a sound view/understanding of His creation. The ultimate reason why we don't glorify God for His awesome creation and we hijack it into Darwinism or some other false gods hands is because we have gotten off the right track in our thinking somewhere, so ultimately we are not going to see creation rightly until we confess our wrong thiinking that leads to our own lack of gratitude toward Him and then trust in the Son He sent to earth to die for our sins which message He gave to His disciples as recorded in the New Testament and Providentially has miraculously survived to this day despite many odds/enemies. In comparison to any other book the Bible is amazingly preserved and maintains its influence like no other book has in ancient past literature and in modern times. It's almost as if God has made it clear what book is His. His actually stands out!!!!!!!!! And what a a message at root it contains. That God loved us so much that He sent His only begotten Son and to make that clear beyond any excuse He does so by dying on the cross. No other message from any other god has that message been so well published in many different forms and preserved except in the Old and New Testament of the Bible!!! We may find fault with people of all faiths and atheisms but never in God. Any percieved fault we may seem to have in God is but a percieved fault for God to be God there is no fault thus all faults we percieve are just our perceptions unless of course we want to assume the opposite. By why? He has called us to faith!!!! Not unbelief. Why should we simply assume unbelief? Why not assume false perception? To be open minded, why not? And some circular argument proceeds with no real good reason for its circularity ending in the inevitable finite, fallible (sure scientifically/logically/philosophically/morally minded but none the less) Man as ultimate in authority!!! To be biblically minded, why not? And a somewhat circular argument proceeds but with a twist at the bottom that justifies itself: Cause God is ultimate in authority!!!! Now this assumes that God does indeed exist but why should we assume otherwise? We've been taught to have faith by God and Jesus and all the Old and New Testament so why should we not have faith and secondly the other options are but biases of unbelief against what God is teaching us so again why should we take an antiGod bias with no justification for its circular reasoning!!!! Is this not similar to what Satan did to Eve in his opening line. "Did God really say....." I mean who else but to God should she have gone too to answer the temptatious questions of Satan. Looks like going to her own mind and pleasures and self didn't do her nor Adam nor the human race and all creation thereafter much good. They should have gone to God's "say so" like Christ did in contrast in His temptation, He responded to the devil with a simple "It is written.....". So the first Adam brought death and the second Adam (Christ) brings life. So we have set before us life and death in these 2 examples. And in matters of the intellect in apologetics we too can be tempted to sin in our thinking. We will either reason the truth of the gospel assuming that God is God or we will reason the truth of the gospel assuming that God is not God. There is no in between. If there is feel free to reason it!!! Assuming nothing or whatever you want to fill in the blank with is not assuming God is or God is not. And to not assume either is to assume God is not for God to be God He most definitely is and to not assume God as ultimate in authority is to assume God is not for if God is He surely is ultimate in authority and thus must be assumed in order for anything to be determined either way for to not do so would be to assume God is not ultimate in authority which again is to assume God is not and on and on and on.... Maybe I am flawed in my reasoning here at the end but that's ok. I type it for argument sake I suppose.

P.S.- My wife is soon to aide me with my running on sentences and such. So in the future my paragraphs may be more tolerable!!!! :)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Third update on Indoctrinate U

http://www.indoctrinateu.com/ -For trailer and to download movie and to watch deleted scenes online for free.

Some interesting posts from producer of indoctrinateus' website:

Starbucks vs. Laissez Faire-"Laissez-faire. It's a policy that made Starbucks vastly successful. But don't try to put that phrase on a customized Starbucks Card."

Watch a video of Michael Moore's Call to Arms-"While Michael Moore was delivering his infamous speech at the Academy Awards, every single documentary filmmaker nominated for an Oscar stood behind him in solidarity. The fact that liberals dominate the industry is even more significant given the recent changes in CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS. Moore and his fellow filmmakers ARE FREE to embed their opinions in movies, but CITIZENS WHO WANT TO FINANCE POLITICAL ADS WILL DISCOVER NEW LIMITS TO THEIR FREEDOM OF SPEECH. What would Mr. Moore have to say about this? To find out, I staked him out over the course of four days."

Recent happenings of related matter:

ADF sues UNC-Wilmington on behalf of conservative pundit and professor Mike Adams-"Adams, hired to teach at UNCW in 1993, and an associate professor since 1998, generated an impressive record of productive research resulting in 10 peer-reviewed publications, the number UNCW department chairs had stated as "safe" to merit promotion to full professor. Adams applied for full professorship in 2004, but the then-interim chair of the department, Dr. Diane Levy, known as an outspoken feminist with leftist political leanings, raised concerns about Adams' "political activity" and reprimanded him for his weekly nationally syndicated column. Contrasting him with columnist William F. Buckley, Levy requested that Adams change his writing style so that it would be less "caustic" and more "cerebral." In 2005, Dr. Kimberly J. Cook became chair of the Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice at UNCW. Cook, an outspoken atheist who openly criticized Christianity, described to a recruitment committee her ideal candidate for a teaching position as "a lesbian with spiked hair and a dog collar." Adams completed his 11th peer-reviewed publication in 2006 and applied for promotion to full professorship. But during a closed-door meeting on Sept. 14 (My birthday, how dare they. Just kidding.), Cook and senior faculty members decided not to promote Adams."

Actual complaint filed with District Court- on 04/10/2007

Court refuses to dismiss professor's discrimination suit against UNC-Wilmington-"Adams frequently received accolades from his colleagues after the university hired him as an assistant professor in 1993 and promoted him to associate professor in 1998 when he was an atheist. However, interrogations, accusations, and refusals for promotion followed his conversion to Christianity in 2000, even though the quality of his work and conduct at the university never wavered....The University of North Carolina-Wilmington must face a lawsuit brought against it by Alliance Defense Fund attorneys on behalf of Mike Adams"

The order denying UNCW most of its motion to dismiss- on 03/31/2008.

Not just in America- "The British Columbia College of Teachers won a court decision against me in 2006 for "conduct unbecoming a member....The college's lawyer stated categorically that "everything you have written, in its entirety, is derogatory and discriminatory." I continue to find that a bewildering statement, because I was quoting peer-reviewed research data, including research done by investigators who are homosexual themselves. Furthermore, I have never had a human rights complaint laid against me."

Not Just in Colleges: ADF attorneys defend Wis. high school student facing religious discrimination-You all may have heard of this one. It made FoxNews and the Sean Hannity show on CNN and MSNBC. "The teacher cited a document that the student and all other students in the class had been required to sign at the beginning of the semester which prevented them from creating artwork with the prohibited depictions. After the teacher said that the student had "signed away his First Amendment rights," the student respectfully protested by tearing the signed document in half...Citing a policy prohibiting depictions of "blood, violence, sexual connotations, [or] religious beliefs," officials penalized a Christian student for his artwork depicting a Bible verse and a cross but did not penalize students who included demonic illustrations in their artwork."

Complaint filed with District Court-On 03/28/2008.

Picture of artwork that got a zero

Copies of artwork depicting demonic images created by other students in the class. Picture 1 and Picture 2.

Watch video of the attorneys Cable TV appearances here.- On FoxNews, CNN Sean Hannity show, and some MSNBC show. Now the links took a while to pull up. But this video didn't take as long as the others on google streaming. Click here for the CNN Sean Hannity show coverage of the story as the 2 lawyers on either sides discuss this.

For alternative to video here is a 10 minute discussion on Jerry Johnson Live available here.

Yanking back the balance and filling in the gaps

"He said, "He who is not for Me is against Me," Just so you know where He's coming from."-Bob Dylan (Gonna Change My Way of Thinking)

Third Update on NM Photographer case:

Finally KOB and KOAT did a report on the christian photographer case. Here it is...

N.M. Human Rights Commission: Photographer Discriminated- It is a rather quick AP report. I think a fair AP report except on the discription of the attorneys handling the case for the photographer. The description reads, "The group handles legal cases aimed at defending the Bible." You'd get the impression that these attorney handle cases aimed at defending the Bible, right. Which makes the attorneys defending the photographer rather strange which then makes the legitimacy of the defense of her position rather strange and doubtful. Let me quote a quote from the attorneys group web site, "ADF was founded for a unique purpose: to aggressively defend religious liberty by empowering our allies, recognizing that together, we can accomplish far more than we can alone." Not to mention that "ADF and its allies has defeated the ACLU and its allies 3 out of every 4 of the hundreds of cases funded and litigated to conclusion- including 33 wins before the US Supreme Court recorded for the past 13 years" as of 2007. And they do it for their clients for free in many situations!!! So let us put the two discriptions of ADF side by side and see how you think this may effect the unknowing readers of the article and thus the credibility of the photographers side of the issue:

AP description of ADF: "The group handles legal cases aimed at defending the Bible."

ADFs' description of ADF: "ADF was founded for a unique purpose: to aggressively defend religious liberty by empowering our allies, recognizing that together, we can accomplish far more than we can alone."

One may wonder why a Bible defender is defending a religious liberty case here. Even in the words of the APs' own writing, "The photographer contends the ruling violates her right to freedom of religion."

And feel free to check out the facts as to whether or not ADF handles legal cases aimed at defending the Bible. Just look on the ACLU's and ADF's web site and see the many many cases they are involved in that are not aimed at defending the Bible.

It is very possible that this is evidence of bias to be so misinforming from a journalist organization that should be held to higher standards then the average me....

Here is a story from the Washington Times that reported on this case way back 02-25-2008 that did a far better job describing ADF. "Jordan Lorence of the Alliance Defense Fund, a "legal ministry" that is representing the Huguenins and defends religious freedom and traditional values.."-Much better. I've noticed that the Washington Times picks up stories like this earlier on then most other media outlets. I don't know if they are conservative or not but I do remember them reporting a very fair report on the Promise Keepers that my dad and I attended in Washington DC many years ago when most other reports were very unfair. So if they aren't conservative at least they have some fairness...

Maybe I am being picky.....you decide.....

Check out the comments made by New Mexicans on this report on KOB. So far there is 76. Now I only read thru the first 20 and it seems alot of New Mexicans are not happy about this as compared to thsoe that are. At least out of those who made a comment to the story.

I have a feeling that KRQE will do a more in depth story on this then the above stations. I sent an email to Dick Knipfing about this story. I don't think it will be a better story casue I sent the email but I do think it will be better because I think that is why they have yet to air a story on this case. My hope is that they are gathering more info to make a more in depth report on the case and actually have a video of it on their web site. KRQE is the only local news channel that reported on the Planned Parenthood situation so maybe they will actually do a little better job on this story then the other stations who didn't report the Planned Parenthood story. This story did also make the Abq Journal finally. I don't know if it made the headlines or if it was stuck somewhere else. This story has made the headlines in every conservative news media outlet that I am aware of and is a hot topic on many national conservative media outlets ever since January. It will be interesting to see if the national non conservative media picks up on it!!!!!!

Some other very interesting information concerning this case I found not even on conservative news sources but on blog sites with the following citations as documented proof...

Background info on lesbian to give revealing info and a face to pray for:

Vanessa Willock has been with UNM since 1997 and is currently an EEO Compliance Representative with the Office of Equal Opportunity where she investigates claims of discrimination and sexual harassment."

She is a committe Member at UNM under Strategic Directions Committe and found under one of the sections titled "Value and benefit from the creativity, innovation, insight, and excitement generated by the many dimensions of diversity that are the essence of the University and the State. (Diversity)."-If one claims diversity then live it!!! Diversity for all except this christian photographers conscience???!!! In the name of diversity must we force those of opposing view points to not only promote ours but be actively involved in the promotion???!!! This discrimination law needs reinterpretation to uphold principles of diversity. Unless diversity doesn't include men and women of conscience/principle. And if it doesn't then is diversity itself a principle of conscience and if so then diversity refutes itself. And if it is not then why so much energy being put into diversity training. Thus to be truely diversified you must include in your diversity training men and women of differing principle and conscience then yourself!!!!

Here are actual official documents:

Original Charge of Discrimination and Notice of Charge of Discrimination sent to photograph company. Plaintiffs own words, "I contacted Elane Photography to inquire about...commitment ceremony. I received an email back which stated that the company only photographs traditional weddings....I wrote back to ask for clarification...and I received an email back....which state "we do not photograph same sex weddings"....I believe I have been discriminated against because of my secual orientation..."

Determination of Probable Cause-06/05/2007. "The evidence reflects the emails where Respondent denies you service. The evidence shows that your partner requested services without telling Respondent that it was a same sex cermony and Respondent agreed to photograph....Respondent also told the Human Rights investigator that she does not perform same sex cermonies...I find there is sufficient evidence to believe that discrimination has occurred."

Just another letter of no added consequence except for realism sent from The State of New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions to attorney handling cas for photographer.

My first reaction is to get frustrated about all this but when I saw this photo of the accuser I thought that this is a lost sinner as much as I am and I should also pray for her that she comes to know Christ as her saviour. So to give you a face to pray for click here. She is on 2nd picture. And a close up here.

Let's pray for her!!!

Yanking back the balance and filling in the gaps

"The last time the Senate waited this long in a presidential election year to confirm federal judges, James Polk, the 11th president, was in the White House." -Sen Orrin G. Hatch (R)-Utah

ADF will oppose marriage redefinition at Cal. Supreme Court today

From 9a-12p!!! Arguments will be heard in California courts today. Get details here.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/ -Live Webcast of case on California court info website and will be archived for later viewing.

http://www.alliancealert.org/2008/03/03/march-3rd-adf-attorneys-to-live-blog-cal-supreme-court-marriage-hearing/ - More info and resources including a live blog during court hearings!!!

I would encourage all to get this groups daily email feed. To learn more about ADF (Alliance Defense Fund, founded by Dr James Dobson, Dr James Kennedy and Bill Bright along with 30 other evangelical leaders) click here.

To sign up for their daily alerts and news concerning what is going on each day in the courts of law concerning Religious Freedom, Sanctity of Life, Marriage and Family, conservative International concerns and more conservative law concerns that most media outlets choose not to inform you on click here.

Lastly what doesn't even make news here in NM which happened in NM after I have complained twice and sent links for contacts for public relations to our local news stations to make it easy for them but have yet to report on a case that has drawn conservative media interest anyways. Here is a link that will link you to to a 7 minute discussion on a talk radio show concerning this issue brought to the NM Human Rights board of somesort.

One thing I believe this lack of popular media coverage does is cause a voter to go to a voting booth not knowing all the issues and thus casting an uninformed vote and actually cause a voter to vote for a candidate that may be unfavourable to his/her views on these subjects not even realizing it. One critique of McCain is on this very issue. You have many decisions being decided in the courts of law that will make a difference in society one way or the other. Judges that are being appointed by one president as compared to another will make an inevitable difference in these higher courts of law when these decisions are appealed in the lower courts. And the higher courts then become sometimes laws for all the land as opposed to just a state. So what is going on elsewhere though it may not be in our state or in all the states none the less what is going on in these liberal states as they are appealled may be forced upon states that are more conservative and don't even have these issues and don't want them. So it matters to us to pay attention. McCain has been criticized by Dobson and Dobson has stated he will not vote for McCain for many reasons that I would have to agree with and one of those reasons is McCains teaming up with 6 other republicans and 7 democrats to allow for fillibustering of certain judges in the past and these would have been favourable judges to the conservative pro family causes in america that would have passed if it were not for these 14. Now McCain may have had other concerns but none the less the result has been an inability for judges to be appointed from a conservatively elected congress which has caused much frustration to the conservative voter. So you can answer your question as to why congress and the president though under republican rule could not get more judges appointed that favoured one of the major reasons why many americans voted them into office is because of 7 republicans and one of those McCain. So McCain may favour other issues and judges that are more concerned about other issues then profamily, freedom of religious, pro life, etc issues that will not be as much of a priority on his mind when he appoints a judge. And thus I reason that since these issues are a major concern for me more then tax cuts and the political issues I will have to reserve my vote for one who is concerned in priority of those issues that concern me. I mean what good is my politic if I can't freely speak out on issues as "marriages" or "pro-life" or anything else that may come up in the future and have to fear being called a bigot if I do and to be equated with a racist. Sure I could be financially fit but at what cost (the cost of my conservative opinions and voice to be silenced). Sure I could live longer with good health care but again at what cost (no health care for children in the womb). Sure I could vote Republican just because I am a Republican but again at what cost. All Republicans do not have the same priorities. I understand that Obama and Clinton may be worse but in this context they are no different then McCain. Sure McCain may have pressure from fellow Republicans that an Obama or Clinton would not however McCain has a history of sticking to his priorities and we give our vote to him then he has the "american people" to claim on his side which will give him further reason to act as he has in the past. Whatever your feeling may be is fine. I am sure there are other sides of the story to every concern that are ligitmate to take into consideration. I guess I am just voicing one side and submitting it to all since I do not think the media does a good job at informing the public on these issues and why many are not happy with McCain. I did not mean to type this out. I just meant to let you all know about the case being held so it was typed on the spot. Sorry for any grammar mistakes and flaws in reasoning. But how can we say "God Bless America" if we don't vote according to principles that God in His Word says are consistent with His Blessings. Now I understand an argument could be made for voting for the least of 2 evils and it seems we have to do that alot and so if one reasons in a line of reasoning of some sort like that so that an Obama or Clinton doesn't get into office. I can understand that. It is a hard decision. But just consider the moral issues along with all the others and for me it seems that McCain has only one thing going for him. That he has consistently from my understanding been pro life except on the stem cell research but otherwise then that he may be conservative but not morally. We would be morally far better off with a Huckabee but can Huckabee when in a presidential election. And I understand Huckabee isn't perfect but we have a consistently morally good political track record with him on all the moral concerns and I feel morally confortable voting for such a one as he and I am glad he is still our conservative voice hanging in there in the race. One thing a non vote for McCain in a presidential election will do is send a clear message to the Republican party that if moral concerns are no longer a serious priority issue in the Republican party you will not have a Republican president. And so I feel we may have to suffer thru a really bad president for 4 years on all issues and reorganize and learn a lesson for the next republican nominee. Rather then have a Republican president for 8 years with republican political values but on the moral issues obselete in priority. If moral issues are the priority issues it seems we have no choice but to rethink Republicanism.

Now for all you Democrats out there. Feel free to completely ignore my run on paragraph but it is valuable for a possible understanding as to why some conservatives are very unhappy with McCain and there can be a whole lot more said then just this issue. Just because the media doesn't report on why doesn't mean there isn't ligitmate concerns granting a certain perspective that is at odds with most media outlets.

And also to all you Republicans that may disagree maybe this gives a perspective as to why a James Dobson isn't completely wacky in stating that he will sit out if McCain is the nominee on this presidential election. I really don't think he will do just that alone I think a possible 3rd party may form or some other avenue may be taken. But if he does sit out I am with him just to insure that the Republican party on moral issues doesn't become a Democratic party. I think that would be worth the non vote for the future of the Republican party. And if you disagree that is fine. God is control no matter what we vote or don't vote on. But none the less I believe voting is not an amoral issue but a moral one and that God would have his childred to work out our reasoning to being consistent with His as revealed in the scriptures in order to cast the best vote we possibly can and I am sure there are good arguments on both side. Kind of like asking the question what would Jesus vote for if he were a registered voter. Jesus did say to render unto Ceasar what is Ceasars and also Paul in Romans speaks about the powers that be are ordained of God and so if a power that be allows for its people to vote on issues that happen to be of moral concern then it seems we do have a moral delimma. But all is in His hands ultimately and so not to make these issues more important then trusting God but out of trusting God as revealed in the scriptures what are we to do in faith. Are we to vote or not vote? Is it immoral to vote is it immoral to not vote? For the sake of the babies in mothers wombs and God's definition of marriage and so on and so forth I take the side that it is immoral not to vote but I understand that when we do vote sometimes we are approving other things that may be wrong also so I can see why one would not vote like in this case with McCain possibly coming up I don't think I am going to vote but that is for a reason rooted in that we should vote for the best possible candidate and that this year we just don't have one possibly. But I am sure there are good reasons on the otherside of this coin.

Thank God that salvation doesn't hinge on these issues and thus it is not to be projected into a salvafic issue at all and that these issues are really after salvation and issues that we work out as we learn more of our Creator and His will for each one of our lives and that the most important thing in light of eternity is trusting in the one who inhabits eternity.

I will shut up now. Sorry all. Take care all. But I couldn't help it. So sorry!!!!