Christian Fundamentalism and American Politics, Part 2

Time for the latest Family Research Council:

February 6, 2004
House Bill Calls for Increased FCC Fines


The fallout from Sunday's Super Bowl halftime show continues. Janet Jackson's stunt, in which she bared her right breast before 89 million viewers, caused such outrage that FCC hearings have been scheduled for February 11. Jackson, who was scheduled to be a presenter at this Sunday's Grammy Awards, is reportedly no longer a part of the program, while CBS has hurriedly enacted a 5-minute delay system for the broadcast in hopes of preventing any future shocking stunts.

If CBS is held liable, they could be faced with fines of up to $27,500 or, if applied to each CBS station, the fines could run in the millions. Of course, this is little more than a slap on the wrist. But there is a bill currently in the House (H.R. 3717) called the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004, which calls for a 10-fold increase of fines from $27,500 to $275,000 per violation or each day of a continuing violation. Sponsored by Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), the bill is a direct result of FCC Chairman Michael Powell asking Congress to increase the statutory maximums, a request he made long before the Super Bowl.

FRC supports this legislation, but we think it could go even further. In fact, I believe that fines for a program should be double the average cost of commercial time. So, for a commercial spot during the Super Bowl that costs $2.5 million, the fine should be $5 million, with no limit on the total amount of a fine for a program. Such a fine would truly serve as a deterrent and bring much-needed decency back to the airwaves.

Additional Resources
Contact CBS
http://www.frc.org/index.cfm?i=LK04B27&f=WU04B06
Urge FCC to Fine CBS for the Super Bowl Indecency
http://www.frc.org/index.cfm?i=AL04B01&f=WU04B06

Bush Considered Israel's Best Friend

Many members of the evangelical community have had their eye on Israel's recent withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, concerned that Israel is being pressured to surrender land of biblical origins.

Mr. Olmert made the trip from Israel solely for the lunch meeting and assured us that his country's pullout was a unilateral decision for tactical and security purposes that was in the best interest of Israel. He told us that Israel considers evangelical Christians their strongest friends and allies along with President Bush, who Mr. Olmert said was the best friend Israel has had. Applauding the ouster of Saddam Hussein, the Deputy Prime Minister said Israel has been a much safer place since the US went into Iraq.

I was fortunate enough to work alongside some of Israel's elite anti-terrorist fighters in the late 1980's, an experience which afforded me not only a deep respect for their expertise and professionalism, but a better understanding of what it means to live as a nation in the midst of continual threat and uncertainty. Israel remains one of America's strongest allies and serves as a great example of democracy in the Middle East. May God continue to bless her.


FRC Holds Same-Sex Marriage Debate at Harvard University


FRC will be sponsoring a landmark debate about same-sex marriage on Monday, February 9th at Harvard University from 7 - 9 p.m. The debate will be held just two days before the pivotal vote in the Massachusetts State Legislature on the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment, which would allow the people of Massachusetts to overrule the Supreme Judicial Court's infamous ruling that homosexuals have a constitutional right to marry.

I will be joined by legal scholar Hadley Arkes in debating Mary Bonauto, plaintiff's attorney in the Goodridge same-sex "marriage" case, and Cheryl Jacques of the Human Rights Campaign. If you are in the area, please consider attending. Call FRC at (202)393-2100 for more information.


Additional Resources
An Open Discussion on Same-Sex Marriage
http://www.frc.org/index.cfm?i=PR04B06&f=WU04B06

FRC's 13th Annual Washington Briefing March 17 - 20, 2004


We are nearing capacity for FRC's 2004 Washington Briefing at the historic Willard Hotel. Among those invited to address the Briefing are President George W. Bush, Senator Sam Brownback, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Dr. James Dobson, Dr. Ralph Reed, Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, Brit Hume, Phyllis Schlafly, Gary Bauer and other pro-family leaders.

We'll begin with an open house at FRC and an exclusive dinner cruise on the Potomac on Wednesday. Thursday and Friday mornings' plenary sessions will be followed by private White House briefings at the Executive Office Building. Evenings include dinner at the National Press Club and entertainment by Grammy-winning recording artist Larnelle Harris. Call 1-800-225-4008 to register today!

February 13, 2004
No Boston Tea Party


There was no tea party in Boston yesterday since the Massachusetts Legislature adjourned at midnight without passing an amendment that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Lawmakers could not agree on language for an amendment, and are now scheduled to reconvene March 11.

But on a positive note, other states have had their eyes glued to Massachusetts this week, pondering the harmful effects of homosexual "marriage," and have fortunately taken steps to amend their own constitutions. Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan, Oklahoma, Georgia and Kentucky have introduced some version of a Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment in their respective states, while Illinois and Alabama are considering amendments. This is a tremendous encouragement for FRC and other members of the Coalition for Marriage in our on-going fight to save marriage from the outstretched arms of tyrannical, unelected judges who continue to legislate from the bench.

The Massachusetts Legislature may be taking a break, but FRC Action (the legislative lobbying arm of FRC) will be gearing up for the next round, lobbying key Massachusetts legislators and securing the votes we need to pass an amendment that defends marriage. And, at the national level, it is time to get the Federal Marriage Amendment moving in Congress. The threat to marriage is clear and the time for our elected officials in Washington to act is now.


Additional Resources
Protect Marriage (www.protectmarriage.org)
http://www.frc.org/index.cfm?i=PG03J01&f=WU04B11
New Zogby Poll Reveals More than Two-thirds of Massachusetts Voters Want to Vote on Traditional Marriage
http://www.frc.org/index.cfm?i=PR04A03&f=WU04B11
Marriage Laws: State by State
http://www.frc.org/index.cfm?i=IF03I01&f=WU04B11

Pro-Life Efforts Squashed

Efforts to protect women against abortion were met with resistance last week when a Virginia House bill that would mandate much-needed regulations for abortion clinics was blocked by the Senate. There are still more regulations at your local mall's Piercing Pagoda where your teenager gets her ears pierced than there are at any abortion clinic in the United States. The Virginia Senate's tactic reveals their belief that keeping the billion dollar business of abortion unregulated is more important than bringing medical injustices to light.

On the federal level, the Justice Department subpoenaed abortion records from six hospitals as part of a lawsuit over partial-birth abortions. But the hospitals have refused to comply, citing patients' right to privacy, even though the Justice Department insists it does not want patient names, only information surrounding the procedures performed. A federal district judge in Chicago quashed the Justice Department's request for records from Northwestern Memorial Hospital, citing Illinois privacy. But these stall tactics can't mask the obvious truth. The longer abortion's devastating effects are swept under the rug, the longer women and the unborn will continue to suffer extensively from the cruel practice of abortion.


Additional Resources
Women Deserve Better
http://www.frc.org/index.cfm?i=AR02G1&f=WU04B11

Brit Hume Joins Roster of Speakers for FRC's Washington Briefing


Fox News' Managing Editor and Chief Correspondent, Brit Hume will address FRC Washington Briefing attendees at the National Press Club on Thursday evening, March 18. We are nearing capacity for the Briefing at the historic Willard Hotel on March 17-20. Among others invited or confirmed to speak are President George W. Bush, Senator Sam Brownback, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Dr. James Dobson, Phyllis Schlafly, Gary Bauer and other pro-family leaders. Other events feature pro-life breakout sessions, a dinner cruise on board the Odyssey, and private White House briefings at the Executive Office Building. Call 1-800-225-4008 to register, or for more information before time runs out!

Yes, Blatham, I think what Scrat is suggesting is that both sides are demanding their civil rights. The difference is, it seems, that it's a debate over who gets to define marriage. Do we lean on tradition, as many fundamentalists prefer to do? Or do we question the traditional authority and think for ourselves?

When the rights of one group conflicts with the rights of another, then it's time to debate which right is the most important, or more specifically, which values are more important or functional. Do we determine which is the over riding civil right by functionality or by tradition and authority? It seems, largely to be a debate with science and learning on the one hand and tradition and authority on the other.

So it seems to me the question is whether we count the teeth in the horse's mouth or do we take the priest's word for it? I say we count the teeth. We must ask the question, as you have on your same sex marriage thread. What functional reason is there to deny same sex marriages?

Let us reason together and save prayer for those times when we can see no other way to help ourselves.

Scrat,

I believe we agree more often than you think. Sometimes, I think you assume I mean something other than I say. Let's remember to clarify in the future, ok?

I agree that it's unfair to deny same sax marriage when we allow opposite sex marriage. But I do think it does matter what it's calledby some same sex couples. Some folks are religious, and they just want to be married in a church by the minister. I personally can't identify with this wish, but I don't think it hurts anyone if we call it marriage. (Except, of course, all those who are so threatened by it they go almost bonkers...........but that's something the mental health community can deal with.)

When we finally get the government out of the "marriage" business -- which rightfully belongs to the churches -- all this will resolve itself.

The only problem I see is...

...getting the government out of the "marriage" business.

The government does not now prohibit any church from marrying anyone they choose,

When we finally get the government out of the "marriage" business -- which rightfully belongs to the churches -- all this will resolve itself.

The holding in Goodridge, by which we are bound, is that group classifications based on unsupportable distinctions, such as that embodied in the proposed bill, are invalid under the Massachusetts Constitution. The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal. . . .

The bill's absolute prohibition of the use of the word "marriage" by "spouses" who are the same sex is more than semantic. The dissimilitude between the terms "civil marriage" and "civil union" is not innocuous; it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status. . . .

IronLionZion,

You think we're all agreeing? WOW