NDFA Blog

Faith, Family, & Freedom Banquet a Success

2012-02-07T11:27:00.007-06:00

Faith, Family, & Freedom Banquet a Success!!

Jeff Kemp hits a home run with the crowd at the Faith, Family, & Freedom Banquet. He shared personal stories of his NFL career, his home life with his wife, and an overview of where marriage is today. He based the totality of his remarks as related to his faith. He inspired all to relate to the banquet theme to “Restore the sanctity of marriage”.

Chris Berg emceed, sharing his strong support for family and marriage. To personalize the evenings theme, a video titled “For Better, For Worse”, shared a real story of a married couple incurring marital problems. Through their faith they were able to save their marriage—a great, encouraging story.

Pastor Doug Vandermeulen, Community Baptist Church, Fargo, shared by video a wonderful overview of the “Role of the Church” in today’s culture, and in specific marriage.
To view Pastor Doug’s video, go to www.ndfa.org

As a Friend-Raiser the event proved very successful, bringing many new faces to the event to hear for the first time what NDFA is all about. As a Fund-Raiser, the event generated funds to help support NDFA’s major initiatives.

To view Pastor's Doug's video: click here.
To view the "For Better, For Worse" video, click here.

2012-01-06T15:44:00.002-06:00

Faith, Family, & Freedom Banquet

Faith, Family, & Freedom Banquet
6:30 Thursday, February 2, 2012
Holiday Inn, Fargo, ND

You are invited. First, please come. Second, consider hosting a table. Next, please consider financially underwriting the event's cost.

To learn more or exercise any of these options, contact the NDFA at 701-364-0676, email admin@ndfa.org, or go to www.ndfa.org

Marr-we-age vs. Marr-i-age

2011-12-08T09:35:00.003-06:00

Marr-we-age vs. Marr-i-age.

The institution of marriage has been an integral part of the family and society for as long as history has been recorded. Today it is undergoing a tremendous change, and many believe it is at a critical crossroads of its existence. The sanctity of marriage is under attack, and on a daily basis—is mocked as an outdated social institution. Its relevancy, benefit, and need are questioned by many in the culture.

Even though the documented research overwhelmingly substantiates the benefits of marriage, even though the book of scripture—the Bible—clearly demonstrates God’s plan for marriage, many in our culture seem oblivious to taking to heart all that is so abundantly clear.

AT THIS POINT MANY WLL STOP READING. They/we have heard a message we perceived as condemning, many times. They may be divorced, or a product of divorce. They may have a daughter who has given birth outside of marriage. They may have a son who has walked away from a marriage leaving the children fatherless. They may be cohabitating, have cohabitated, or know of someone who has cohabitated—maybe their children. A majority of us may fall into these categories.

By nature, we do not want to repeatedly hear what we think is reflecting a patronizing or condemning attitude. And to some, if biblical truths are referenced, it creates an even greater barrier to hearing any information about the committed institution of marriage.

Well this message is not meant to be patronizing or condemning. It is meant to be uplifting, not judgmental. It is founded in the spirit of truth and grace. It is that combination of compassion and reality that provide a sense of hope.

So is there hope for marriage? Yes. Over 80% of high school seniors want to have a successful marriage relationship. That is documented research data, fact—the truth. If you favor marriage, that is good news. The not so good news is what they see going on around them;
• Marriage rates have declined by 50% over the past 35 years
• Number of cohabitating couples have increased by 1500% since 1960
• Divorce rate has stabilized, but at a relatively high rate
• 41% of all births occur in a non-marital situation
• 27% of children live in a single parent home, most without a father
While so many want a successful marriage. They are afraid because of what they see around them. They worry that their relationship won’t work out.

So they wait to marry later in life, with the average age increasing by almost 5 years since 1960. Many experiment with cohabitation, believing the test relationship will validate if the significant other is the ‘one’. They believe cohabitating will eliminate the risk of divorce if he or she is not the ‘one’. Others, usually females, just want someone until Mr. Perfect comes along.

Unfortunately research documents just the opposite. Cohabitation leads to less stable relationships, whether that is in the cohabitating state or if the couple marries. The average marriage preceded by cohabitation has a 65% likelihood of divorce compared to a 40% chance for those not cohabitating. Over 50% of cohabitating unions end in the first 5 years, as compared to 20% of marriages which have no history of cohabitation.

The modern feminist movement of the 60’s may have sought some praiseworthy goals to strengthen the standing and opportunities for women. Unfortunately most of their strategies have had the opposite effect, including the support of abortion as a means to take control of their life.

Secondly, the movement was to liberate the women by promoting a sexual expressiveness that reflected their view of men. The solution was not to have men behave more virtuously but to encourage women to act more like men sexually. Chastity was no longer a promoted virtue.

Number three. The movement viewed marriage as oppressive, as trapping millions of women in a lifelong relationship of drudgery, saying goodbye to all their goals, hopes, and dreams. Cohabitation, they believed, could fix all this. Finally it was a relationship where the woman was an equal partner. And the woman may even have the advantage, because if she was not treated the way she wanted, she could leave.

In actuality, the cohabitating relationship enables the qualities in men which the movement was seeking to affect. The man can maintain a lifestyle associated with being single, foot loose and fancy free. And if a pregnancy becomes an issue, the opportunity to leave is an easy option.

In all of this we have not mentioned those most affected by marriage or the cohabitating relationship—the children. Today many relationships are about satisfying their own desires, with little regard for the wellbeing and welfare of the children. The culture’s moving toward a lack of child centeredness is driven by a decline in selflessness, sacrifice and maturity—all of which are required to raise the next generation.

Children want and need the stability of a healthy home. Research documents that children do better emotionally, physically, financially, and spiritually when raised by two married, biological parents. Unfortunately, we are heading in the wrong direction. From 1970 to 1996, the percentage of all children under age 18 living with two married parents has steadily decreased from 85% to 68%. From 1960 to 2006, the percentage of children living with a single parent, in most cases without a father, increased from 9% to 28%. Over 41% of cohabitating homes contain children.

To this point so much information has been shared, and yet we have only scratched the surface. So what can be done, and why? First, simply to the why. The book of science, virtually thousands of pages of documented research bear out the benefits of marriage as the environment best for children, and for adults seeking an intimate relationship. The book of scripture, the Bible, clearly provides God’s plan for marriage and the family.

Second, and in conclusion, what can be done? You may be wondering if you missed the section relating to the title ‘marr-we-age vs. marr-i-age’. The success of this relationship we call marriage rests on ‘commitment’. This commitment must come from both participants—so there can be no ‘I’ in marriage, but must be ‘we’. The ‘we’ must always take precedence over the ‘I’.
As Christians we fully acknowledge the importance including God in our marriage, and now the we becomes three. As we read in Ecclesiastes 4:12, Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves, but a cord of three strands is not easily broken. This unity can and will support successful marriages, or should we say successful ‘marr-we-ages.

Celebrate Family Week, 2011

2011-10-25T08:38:00.002-05:00

To view Family Week poster, click here.

Celebrate Family Week, 2011

November 13-19, 2011

The North Dakota Family Alliance’s (NDFA) 5th Annual Family Week begins Sunday, November 13th. Believing that marriage is the cornerstone of the family, and the family is the foundation of society, NDFA encourages all to celebrate the importance of the family, and families spending time together.

North Dakota Governor Jack Dalrymple issued a Family Week Proclamation at the NDFA’s request. Family Week posters have been sent to all schools and churches, and placed with many businesses across the state drawing attention to Family Week.

This year’s Family Week Celebration focuses on ‘marriage’, drawing its source from Matthew 19:5, “and said, for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”. The institution of marriage has foundationally influenced society for centuries. “Preserving the sanctity of marriage is necessary for the stability of the family, and to insure the legacy we leave our children and grandchildren”, states Tom Freier with the North Dakota Family Alliance.

During this year’s Family Week Celebration, NDFA is encouraging all in North Dakota to promote the family in all environments, including: the home, in school, in our church, and in our job at work. Looking to our Family Week poster, determine how you can intentionally promote marriage in your family.

The week’s celebration will include daily interviews with nationally known experts on this year’s area of emphasis ‘marriage’. Dr. Glenn Stanton with Focus on the Family and Dr. Pat Fagan with Family Research will provide great information as they visit North Dakota in November. We will also interview Brad Wilcox with the National Marriage Project, Jeff Kemp with Stronger Families, and Bill Doherty at the University of Minnesota.

This year’s emphasis on the sanctity of marriage is monumentally important in today’s culture. The cultural problems in today’s society stem from a breakdown in the family, and the breakdown in the family emanating from fewer Americans living in the committed relationship of marriage. The very best environment for children is in a home surrounded by their biological mother and father.

As proud sponsors, Scheels, Miller Insulation and MVP/J5 Trucking have demonstrated their commitment to the family. They live out this commitment every day in their relationship with their employees and families.

Tom Freier, NDFA Executive Director, states, “A healthy family environment benefits all, and of course, most certainly—the family itself. And foundational to that family is a committed couple united by marriage.”

Please celebrate Family Week sharing with family and friends the importance of family, and that this celebration should not end with Family Week. It should carry on into Thanksgiving week, and then throughout the entire year.

Real Issue... Comments from Real People... Cohabitation...

2011-10-13T16:28:00.005-05:00

A Real Issue... Real Comments from Real People.... Cohabitation....

Is this issue worth your time????

A legacy leaving issue.

I need 10 minutes of your time, maybe more, maybe less--depending on your interest. You decide.

Cohabitation is widespread, on the rise, and becoming more prevalent every day in America, and right here in North Dakota. It has already greatly influenced, and if current trends continue, it may well serve as the greatest influence on the moral fabric of our society and determine the cultural legacy we leave our children.

Please read Jim Daly's introduction to Esther Fleece's Washington Post article, titled 'Living together,' unmarried? Put a ring on it!

'With all due respect to Jim and Esther-Jim's introduction is wonderful, Esther's article is great (especially sharing an insightful perspective from a young female), but the comments in response to Esther's article put a face to this real issue, from real people. WOW!!

If you can read 10-15 of the comments, and stop, you...you..... well, I couldn't. If you or someone you know, is or has been involved in cohabitation, and wish to respond--you may do so confidentially to us at admin@ndfa.org or directly to the site as you view the comments, adding ndfa to your name.

To link to Jim's introduction, Esther's article, and the comments, click here.

Among the many, great links in the article-you may want to go to state of our unions to find this great, indepth report.

Obviously, all this information is intricately involved to our NDFA Marriage Task Force Study, which will meet again on November 15th in Fargo. (and the Dr. Glenn Stanton referenced in the article will address our task force in Fargo)

Please pray for marriage.

Are you 'the luckiest man on the face of the earth?

2011-09-16T15:18:00.003-05:00

Are you ‘the luckiest man on the face of the earth?”

“Yet today I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the earth”. We all remember these immortal words of Lou Gehrig as he said good bye to baseball, the fans, his friends, and really—life. He did not bemoan his fate, lament that his career was being cut short by disease, but shared his gratefulness for his life and the opportunities afforded to him.

What a shining portrait of courage, of a wisdom filled perspective of life.
Can I say ‘today, I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the earth’? Can you?

To do so, we need to be at peace with ourselves, and God. Looking back, if our life is but brief or long, we need to have a sense of comfort, of tranquility, that only comes from knowing we did our best. We participated in the causes we believed important, we put our focus on the priorities we deemed absolutely essential. While on a day to day basis, we faced daunting challenges, we never lost sight of our purpose in life.

As the apostle Paul writes, ‘I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith’. In Paul, we see a picture of contentment and confidence. He understands the huge challenges of the future. He must know how his passionate ministry might bring the gospel to more of the lost, but he humbly accepts God’s purpose for his life, and now must step aside. Paul must now place his confidence in those chosen by God to accept the mantle.

No matter what stage of our lives, you and I cannot allow the moment to pass us by. We may not know the time or place, but assuredly the opportunities to engage those life fulfilling missions in our life will come. If we recognize them and engage them with a good faith effort, our internal sense of peace will comfort us throughout our life.

Personally, I have encountered these life changing opportunities on numerous occasions. Most recently, in 2006 I was presented with the opportunity/challenge to lead the North Dakota Family Alliance. By God’s grace and providential wisdom I accepted, and now believe it was God’s plan and purpose all along that I might be prepared to advocate on behalf of Him and His plan for the family.

In Lou Gehrig’s final speech to a packed Yankee stadium in 1939, not once did he mention his records and achievements, but throughout he highlighted cherished relationships with friends and even adversaries, and most of all, his family. He spoke of the support of his wife, mother and father, and even from an unlikely source—his mother-in-law. He wanted his fans to know what was really important to him, as his life reflected.

So it is with us, our legacy is not determined in hindsight. It is put in place one day at a time as we travel through this journey we call life. If we fail to respond wisely and appropriately to opportunities placed before us, we may never have that chance again. Whether that be a career choice, a business decision, or something as foundational as being the spiritual leader of our family, our decision will determine our legacy.

Maybe the life changing opportunity for you is to immerse yourself into a cause, a ministry. Your passion, coupled with your time, talents, and treasure can truly make a difference. In some instances you might see immediate results, but in many cases your efforts will be realized by those in the future. The tree you plant today will offer shade for many generations in the future. Moses saw the Promised Land, but did not set foot on it—so it is with many whom so tirelessly labor to impact the legacy left to our children and grandchildren.

So can I say ‘today, I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the earth’? Yes. I am certain I will spend eternity with my Lord and Savior. Yes. With the NDFA I am able to fight the good fight to strengthen families and protect our family values and religious freedom. I can make a difference to save unborn lives, save marriages, to protect our right to share the gospel, and more. Whether I am able to set foot on the Promised Land or not, it is well with me.

So if you are looking for the peace of a Lou Gehrig or the confidence of a Paul, prayerfully petition the Creator in discerning your calling. And don’t pass up the opportunity; your legacy is waiting to be written.

A deal, a compromise, or a solution?

2011-08-04T18:45:00.001-05:00

The Debt Ceiling Misnomer

A deal, a compromise, or a solution?

Even though out of the office and somewhat secluded over the past week, I couldn’t escape the issue which consumed the media reports, the talk shows, and print media for the past month—the debt ceiling debate. Much of the media focused on the impending catastrophic ramifications of defaulting on our debt repayment and/or budget obligations. While these are very, very serious consequences to consider and are worthy of immediate action, the underlying foundational causes leading to the problem received far less attention. The real problem is excessive federal government spending.

We cannot believe that simply raising the debt limit, allowing the government to borrow more money—will solve the foundational problem, either short term or long term. To simply increase the debt ceiling or raise revenue by way of higher taxes, is not the answer, but only a formula to saddle our children and grandchildren with a burden which will last long after we are gone. Let’s be honest, what occurred was a ‘deal’, a ‘compromise’, not a solution.

In the political world you will hear, ‘it was the best deal we could get’, ‘everybody has to give some, all have to compromise’, ‘if nobody likes it, it is probably the best we could do’, and ‘I didn’t like it but we had to pass something’, and so on. I fully understand the necessity of compromise in the governance of the affairs of the nation, but when the political compromise is more about politics and less about governance—it makes deals instead of putting in place long term solutions.

The problem, the issue is very simple. We are spending more than we are taking in, deficit spending. Accumulated deficit spending requires borrowing in large amounts, trillions of dollars. As a family we understand the burden of debt, the albatross it creates, and the necessity of sound financial practices. Our families need to balance their budget, and now the federal government’s failure to balance its budget may well mean taking more from the family budget. That is not right, we deserve better.

While much has been made of China owning and controlling us as a result of their owning so much of the US debt instruments, the largest owner of our debt is us. The Social Security Trust Fund and the Treasury own by far the greatest portion of the debt, and as such have the most to lose. So the big losers of the president and congress ‘kicking the can down the road’ are us. You can’t rob the money out of the Social Security Trust Fund, replace it with IOUs, and hope to meet those obligations into the future.

At one time one of most secure investments we could make was US Treasuries, because it was backed by the full and good faith of the US Government. Today, that confidence has been shaken. This is true not only in the bond market, but as evidenced by the downturn in the overall market—accentuated by a one day 500 point plus drop in the DOW. This drop wipes out the year’s entire gains in just one day. This weakness in the markets reflects the public’s view of the ineffective federal governing policies. The people want solutions not a deal.

While the deal, the compromise may contain some worthy components—most are off in the distance, sometime in the future. Very little of the passed agreement affects current spending, with most of the spending cuts occurring later in the 10 year period. Unfortunately, past history documents few of these future, contingent cuts from ever coming to fruition.

The Balanced Budget Amendment is necessary, and must be passed as soon as possible. Unfortunately, in the best case scenario, its enactment and benefits will be many years down the road. Putting in place a 12 member congressional commission to guide the process to putting our financial house in order—leaves me thinking we will get more of the same. Balancing spending cuts with future debt ceiling increases leave open huge opportunities to play games—equating a spending cut with a decrease in the proposed/requested increase. Government spending will continue to grow.

That’s government as usual, what we have come to expect. We cannot allow that to happen.

A government demonstrating trustworthy stewardship, providing the necessary services for the people it governs is a blessing. A government’s failure to be wise financial stewards is a heavy burden to the family, and the children and grandchildren to come.

Now that the debt ceiling legislation has passed, we must call on our congressional delegation to pursue implementation that will best address the real problems with real solutions. While the entitlement programs make up an overwhelming portion of the federal budget, the current legislation failed to address those issues. We must address the real issues of appropriate spending levels within our means. We must require our delegation to stand up for these common sense solutions. Many speak of taking the common sense values of North Dakota to Washington, now is the time to unapologetically represent these solid family values.

As our congressional delegation is back in North Dakota for a recess—talk to them—share you views.

Marriage on the Rocks! Is it?

2011-06-01T12:02:00.002-05:00

Marriage on the Rocks! Is it?

The US Census Bureau released the 2010 census data which shows only 48% of all households are being occupied by a married couple, down from 52% in 2000. The story reported on the “SayAnythingBlog” offers a list of reasons from the census department officials including: marriage is not a priority, higher incidence of widows, more divorces, getting married older, the difficulty and cost of divorce, no longer a stigma attached to cohabitation, and the perceived raw deal men get in divorce. These ‘matter of fact’ reasons are from the US Census Bureau.

While the report may be accurate, it leaves out a great deal of information. First, we have seen some improvement over the past 20 years, with the divorce rate frequency decreasing by 3%. The frequently trumpeted reports of ‘half the marriages among Christians and non-Christians alike end in divorce’ are being documented as false. Numerous studies show a spread of 20%, with a 38% divorce rate for those who attend church regularly and 60% for those that attend rarely.

Among all the benefits of marriage, one that is easily documented is the economic and financial status. Married couple families fare better in all categories, including; employment, income, net worth, poverty, receipt of welfare, and child economic well-being. In 2009, 5.8% of married couple families were living in poverty, compared to 29.9% of families with an unmarried female head of household. Pat Fagan with the Family Research Council reports that by digitally re-uniting these single mother households with the fathers—we would see an 80% reduction in poverty in the United States.

Sadly, more than 40% of births in the U.S. are to unmarried women. Even in this environment, a Pew study found that 2/3 of Americans say women having children without a dad to help raise them is bad for society. Focus on the Family’s Glenn Stanton, states “Americans do recognize that fatherhood does not end at conception, and children need lifelong contributions from both male and female parents.”

Since the 1960’s America has seen an astronomical increase in cohabitation rates, with a 25% increase just since 2000. Today, one out of every 10 couples is cohabitating. Obviously, the decision to remain abstinent and resist cohabitating, relates to one’s moral beliefs which in most cases are grounded in our religious teachings. But many cite economic conditions, namely money and jobs---“two can live cheaper together, than separately”.

The truth is that cohabitating couples have the lowest net worth growth of all family structures. From a state perspective, you have lower incomes, less income taxes being collected, and more government services required. From the cohabitating couple’s perspective, the lower income level places stress in the family and in many cases leads to separation. And in many cases, these separations involve dependent children.

The ‘matter of fact’ report from the US Census Bureau leaves out a vital component of the discussion—that component being “commitment”. A successful marriage requires commitment, both in preparation of marriage and during the marriage relationship. That strong commitment will be rewarded by a long lasting, successful marriage, which is in the best interests of the couple, their children, and society.

As a Christian organization, NDFA believes God ordained marriage. And as Christ is the cornerstone of our personal lives, marriage is the cornerstone of the family, and the family is the foundation of society. The cultural legacy we leave our children and grandchildren will in part largely be determined by how successful we are at preserving and defending the sanctity of marriage.

As Christians, will we allow the culture to influence us, or will we be the “Salt & Light” as we influence the culture?

Was HB 1450 The Defense of Human Life unworthy of a vote?

2011-04-29T09:05:00.004-05:00

HB 1450 The Defense of Human Life bill unworthy of a vote suggests Sen. Curtis Olafson in his public statement, click here to see letter.

Below see a response to Sen. Olafson’s comments from representatives from North Dakota Family Alliance, Concerned Women for America, and ND Right to Life.

By Paul Maloney, Tom Freier and Janne Myrdal

BISMARCK — In his letter about HB 1450, Sen. Curtis Olafson, R-Edinburg, tried to justify his procedural trick that prevented a roll-call vote by insisting the bill was “poorly worded” and the work of “out-of-state extremists” (“Bill set N.D. up for expensive failure,” Page A4, April 19).

As leaders of North Dakota’s pro-life community, we feel compelled to set the record straight.

Olafson’s suggestion that the Defense of Human Life Act was not worthy of a roll-call vote in the Senate is absurd. The bill overwhelmingly passed the North Dakota House, 68-25, and received a 5-1 “do pass” recommendation from the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The bill was crafted and honed with the collaboration of former state and federal prosecutors along with attorneys from many organizations (both statewide and national) with experience crafting and successfully defending pro-life legislation.

We fully accept the fact that there is disagreement as to what will be the best approach to end the evil of abortion in our great state and nation. But it is shockingly audacious to suggest this bill did not deserve a roll-call vote.
Olafson insists that he is “pro-life,” but along with his supporters, he also asserts that “HB 1450 never would withstand a constitutional challenge.” This assertion is not only conceited, but also a tragic misunderstanding of the separation of powers in this country.

If the North Dakota senators who supported Olafson’s tabling of the bill are so above the rest of us in their knowledge of the judiciary process, then where can a citizen ever go with a grievance? If decades-old decisions such as Roe v. Wade are invoked to prohibit our Legislature from even holding a roll call vote, then what opportunity for righting a wrong can ever be found?

There is no way in which the Constitution prohibits equal protection under the law for all human beings. A legislator who claims otherwise cannot be pro-life in any meaningful sense.

But the real questions concern Olafson’s conduct regarding HB 1450 and the vast discrepancy between his conduct and his rhetoric. Why did Olafson cut off the Senate debate on HB 1450 before even mentioning his concerns of a possible legal challenge? Why did he not mention this concern during the three weeks in which he met with us and other pro-life leaders in what he claimed was a good faith effort to clarify the intent and effect of the bill?

At the end of those three weeks, the language that Olafson himself had requested and which the Legislative Council drafted for him was added to the bill in order to protect in-vitro fertilization and life-saving medical treatment while also adding a rape/incest exception. Olafson then voted for the amendments and motioned to approve the bill in committee only to kill the bill the next day with a procedural trick on the Senate floor.

Why such appalling duplicity from a senator who claims to be pro-life?

North Dakotans expect and deserve integrity in their legislators. The “initiated measure process” that Olafson recommends is not meant to be the only way voters can be fairly and accurately represented in the state government.

We expect and deserve honesty in the committee process and a transparent vote on each bill. Olafson’s refusal to grant either is a betrayal of his obligation not only to his district but also to the state.

Maloney is executive director of North Dakota Right to Life, Freier is executive director of North Dakota Family Alliance Action and Myrdal is state director of Concerned Women for America of North Dakota.

The Forum calls Divorce Reform a "Sham"

2011-02-07T19:53:00.006-06:00

The Forum newspaper of Fargo called Divorce Reform legislation a "Sham". Our response is below.

SB 2367 Divorce Reform That Can Make A Difference

Comments offered by Tom Freier, North Dakota Family Alliance

As an entity which supports SB 2367, the North Dakota Family Alliance takes exception to the Forum’s characterization of this effort as a “sham”. This is a strong word meaning; a trick, false, silliness, counterfeit, and purporting to be genuine. None of these words apply to this effort. We need to ask ourselves a number of questions.

First, does the state have a vested interest in this issue? Whether we agree or not, the state currently is the grantor of both marriage licenses and divorce decrees. Chapter 14 of the North Dakota Century Code contains hundreds of pages of law dealing with domestic relations, including marriage, divorce, child custody, and parental rights and responsibilities, to mention just a few. The state, acting on behalf of its citizens has taken on the responsibility to put in place laws and rules that take into account the best interests and wellbeing of all, adults and children.

Second, does this issue rise to the level of need which should be addressed by the legislature?
Nationally, every year 1 million children are a product of divorce, On average in North Dakota, each year we have 4200 marriages, 1900 divorces, of which 900 will involve 1600 dependent children. Put in perspective, using the current trend of 1600 children per year, in 25 years that equates to 40,000 children, greater than the population of Minot.

Mounting evidence concludes that many, not all, but most children will experience the devastating physical, emotional, and financial effects associated with divorce which will last well into adulthood and affect future generations. To a degree many children of divorce will; have a higher incidence of crime and drug abuse, perform more poorly in school, have a higher incidence of being abused, be more likely to be raised in poverty, and they, themselves have a higher rate of divorce.

The reality is that divorce has a huge emotional impact on children. Most children fail to fully understand divorce. If adults struggle to piece together the components of the divorce, to come to grips with their feelings and emotions, how can we expect an 11 year old to? To those on the outside, the final divorce decree might seem like a new beginning, a time to move on, but to most children of divorce the ongoing challenge of how to deal with their feelings and emotions is only beginning.

The financial cost of divorce involving children is high, to the family and the state. The Heritage Foundation estimates costs to the state at $25,000 per divorce. Even using a more conservative figure of $20,000 here in North Dakota, the annual costs are in the millions. The annual cost just regarding those 900 divorces involving children would equate to $18 million. Depending on the success of a program to decrease the number of divorces, the cumulative savings over the years could well be in the millions. And this does not take into account the many and varied the costs to the individual families.

So a final question needs to be posed—would legislation such as SB 2367 have a positive influence on diminishing the number of divorces where dependent children are involved? Would requiring a 12 month waiting period as is in the bill, or even 6 months as some have suggested, make a difference? Would requiring counseling sessions, whether that be the 10 in the bill, or even 4 or 5 have an impact?

Recent information seems to indicate that a waiting period including appropriate counseling sessions may well be successful in certain situations, in those cases where abuse is not involved. There are no guarantees as to how many may reconsider their plans for divorce. The question is what is the necessary return on investment? Is it 10 marriages, or 50 marriages, or is it 75 children or is it 250 children? How can we measure the impact on those children?

And what is the investment this bill is asking for? It is requiring the married couple who entered into a legal contract, who have dependent children and now as they are seeking a divorce---that they would make the investment of attending counseling sessions during a waiting period---before reaching that final decision. A decision which will impact not only their future, but that of their children.

This is the policy decision before the legislature. Contrary to the view of the Forum, it is a legitimate discussion to have. Yes in general, it is about the benefits of marriage and family. I hope the Forum sees that as a good thing. But it specifically seeks to offer solutions to conflict and saving marriages, and especially taking into consideration the wellbeing of the children.

The Forum is correct when saying that divorce is personal, complicated, and traumatic—but it fails to understand the real reason for this legislation—to take into account the wellbeing of the children. If the Forum would see the overall intent of this legislation, they would not have called this measure a “sham”. They would not have accosted the legislators who introduced this bill as wanting “to bring the heavy boot of government intrusion”, when their genuine efforts should be applauded, not ridiculed for wanting North Dakota to be better for all, including the children.

Defending Marriage is Bigotry

2010-12-22T08:47:00.002-06:00

To deal with this issue, it is necessary to hear all the discussion.
From Chuck Colson's site--we see.

Defending Marriage Is Bigotry?
All Things Examined
By: Regis Nicoll|Published: December 3, 2010 12:17 PM
Topics: Arts & Media, Church Issues, Marriage & Family, Sexual Ethics

The only thing motivating opposition to gay “marriage” is bigotry and hate. If it were really about the sacredness of the institution, Kirsten Powers wonders, where is the Christian activism against divorce and promiscuity among heterosexuals?

Powers, a Fox News political analyst, explains that this double standard is important “because it reinforces the idea among Christians that gay people are morally inferior and don’t deserve to be treated fairly.” I'll come back to this "double standard" in a moment, but right now I want to consider Ms. Powers' rather strong suggestion that judgmental rhetoric by Christians is responsible for the upsurge of teen bullying and gay suicide.

To support that line of thought, Powers voices some incautious judgments of her own, starting with the allegation that Purpose-Driven pastor Rick Warren compared “same-sex marriage to pedophilia and incest.” That’s a charge that packs high emotional impact among gays and gay “marriage” supporters. So what did Rick Warren actually say?

What he said

In a lengthy interview, covering numerous topics, the Editor-in-Chief of Beliefnet asked Warren what he thought about partnership benefits, like insurance coverage and hospital visitation. Warren’s response:

“You know, not a problem for me. I favor anyone being able to make anyone else the beneficiary of their health or life insurance coverage. If I am willing to pay for it, I should be able to put a friend, partner, relative, or stranger on my coverage. No one should be turned away from seeing a friend in the hospital.”

Warren, remember, is one of those who believe that homosexuals “don’t deserve to be treated equally.” He went to explain,

“The issue to me… [is the] redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.”

As the transcript makes clear, Rick Warren was voicing his opposition to any social arrangement that would fundamentally change the nature of marriage as it has been defined and valued in every civilization throughout recorded history.

Yet, the inconvenient truth of the matter is that, if legalized, an adult-child or brother-sister union would be on equal legal and social footing with same-sex “marriage,” such that anyone referring to them pejoratively as “pedophilic” or “incestuous” would be libel for hate speech. What’s more, if we follow the numbing drumbeat of the gay lobby—namely, that marriage is the civil right to marry whomever one chooses—there will be no legal or logical barrier to limit it to non-relatives or adults, or even to two people.

Those who pooh-pooh that last prospect have not been paying attention to what has been happening in Canada.

Lesson from Canada

In 2005 Canada redefined marriage to accommodate same-sex couples. Today, five years later, a challenge to further “modernize” the nation’s marriage laws is heading to the Supreme Court. The modernization called for is the legalization of “multiple conjugal relationships,” or polyamory.

The arguments advanced for polyamory in Canada are the same as those being made in the U.S. for same-sex “marriage”: Polyamorous unions are loving, committed, consensual, and egalitarian; laws prohibiting them are discriminatory and unconstitutional; there is no evidence that polyamory is harmful to society or the individuals involved.

To see where Canada’s modernization is heading, here is a description of the living arrangements of some of the plaintiffs involved:

(1) a woman and her male partner who live and have relationships with two other adults in the household (they also have a child living in the home) and who have agreed that each can pursue relationships with others, (2) a woman who lives with two other men (two of her teenage sons also live in the home), (3) a husband and wife who live with another adult (and the married couples' two young children and the third person's teenage children), and (4) a man who lives with a woman and another man (with whom he is raising a two-year-old child).

These types of relationships (and more) would become legal should the plaintiffs prevail. The take-away from Canada is that once marriage is redefined, it is not a question of if, but when political pressure will be applied to extend it to any constellation of relationships that mankind can imagine.

Gay “marriage” is a social juggernaut that, once launched, can be hampered only by an arbitrary and coercive act of law.

A Bible lecture

After Ms. Powers charges Christians with “heaping condemnation and judgment on others,” she lectures them with this bit of learned biblical insight: “Let’s remember, Satan wasn’t kicked out of heaven for being gay; it was pride.”

As I recall, neither was he kicked out for judgmentalism, bigotry, or a host of other sins. But what Satan was or wasn’t guilty of is beside the point. If the Bible is marshaled in defense of some human behavior, the foremost authority is Jesus and what he said about the matter.

For the matter at hand, Jesus warned his disciples that extramarital sex, including willful lust, put a person in risk of damnation. And since Jesus never saw fit to modernize marriage Canadian style but, rather, re-affirmed the institution as originally given, his warning would include same-sex behaviors whether or not they are committed within a legally-recognized, or church-blessed, relationship.

Continuing her lecture, Powers writes, “The people who really ticked Jesus off were the Pharisees, who were self-righteous and hypocritical, which would fairly describe many of today’s Christians.”

It would also fairly describe many of today’s social progressives whose outrage against social injustice goes strangely mute against the injustice done to the smallest, youngest, and most powerless among us; or the advocates of tolerance whose intolerance for the views of others is expressed in vandalizing churches, threatening and assaulting opponents, and storming into worship services throwing condoms on the altar and shouting insults at the congregation; or of those who play fast and loose with the hypocrisy card.

The double standard

But this is only the set up for Powers’ main point, which comes straight from the social progressive playbook: The anti-gay marriage movement is driven not by reasoned argument, but by bigotry. Else, Powers suggests, Christians would be “running around confronting their sexually active heterosexual co-workers and friends about their ‘lifestyle.’”

While it is true that Christians have been sorely remiss in living out the teachings of Jesus and holding each other accountable to them, collectively Christians have done more than any group to address the myriad problems associated with extramarital sex through abstinence programs like Aspire and True Love Waits and healthy marriage programs like Marriage Encounter, Marriage Savers, Smart Marriages, and Preventing Divorce.

On top of that, many churches require premarital counseling for engaged couples and offer free counseling to married couples. And if it weren’t for Christian authors, there would be scarcely any books on the shelves promoting monogamous intimacy and fidelity.

Yes, Christian individuals have a long way to go in practicing the faith they profess and in supporting, encouraging, challenging, and, when necessary, confronting each other in their Christian walk. Sadly, in some isolated and highly publicized incidences, Christian individuals have been guilty of hurtful and judgmental confrontations with homosexuals, as have homosexuals with those who hold opposing views.

Nevertheless, the Christian pro-marriage movement, on which Powers breezily heaps her own judgment, is not about confronting individuals; it is about defending a time-honored institution through public discourse and civic involvement.

That includes educating the public and elected officials about same-sex “marriage” and the seismic implications it has for society, and exercising the right of free speech and the right to vote for laws and political leaders that uphold marriage as the exclusive, life-long, life-welcoming union between one man and one woman. And there is nothing hypocritical or bigoted about that.

Regis Nicoll is a freelance writer and a BreakPoint Centurion. His "All Things Examined" column appears on BreakPoint every other Friday. Serving as a men’s ministry leader and worldview teacher in his community, Regis publishes a free weekly commentary to stimulate thought on current issues from a Christian perspective. To be placed on this free e-mail distribution list, e-mail him at centurion51@aol.com.
Articles on the BreakPoint website are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Chuck Colson or BreakPoint. Outside links are for informational purposes and do not necessarily imply endors

Come Now, Let Us Reason Together

2010-12-10T13:22:00.000-06:00

Come Now, Let Us Reason Together

As we contemplate the recent past and anticipate the immediate future, many are unsure about what may happen in North Dakota, or even in this land we call America. As we approach this Holy season, it may be time to reflect, a time put all in perspective.

The elections in November provided two new faces in the North Dakota congressional delegation, as well as placing the Republicans in control in the US House of Representatives. Republicans made substantial gains in the North Dakota legislature and especially in the senate where the margin is now 35-12.

As in the aftermath of most elections, the victor claims a mandate—citing “the voters have spoken”. President Obama made this claim in 2008, and now Republicans in 2010. To a great degree this is how things have gone for years, on all levels, state, federal, and local.

The losing party develops an immense liking of compromise, and castigates the majority as some sort of evil force if it fails to give in proportionately. On the national level, today—President Obama and the Democratic Party are expecting compromise. The same scenario will play out in the 2011 North Dakota legislative session—compromise will be expected.

While compromise in and of itself is not unacceptable, the foundational reasoning for the compromise may be of concern. If that reasoning does not have its basis in the constitution, or in firm principled standards, but is responding to the temporary whim of a poll—it is not sound or wise. Ours is a republic which places supreme power with the people.

As we seek even greater guidance, looking to Isaiah 1:18 may provide some profound wisdom, applicable centuries before Christ’s birth, as well as today. “Come now, let us reason together”, says the Lord. In response to His people turning away, rejecting Him, He offers to reason with them.

Was He offering to compromise? The short answer is ‘no’. The offer is to reason. The verb reason is to think or argue logically. The noun reason is defined as a motive or basis for an action, decision, or conviction. God is asking those in 700BC to bring their thoughts, requests, and arguments to Him. The basis for the response is measuring their arguments in relation to His standards, His will. Isaiah documents His response.

Today, whether in the public policy arena or in our personal lives, we fail to measure our arguments against His standards. Compromise in most cases is limited to the viewpoints of this world, the standards of this world. The culture of the flesh determines the parameters of our discussion, and the eventual compromise.

So what can we learn from Isaiah 1:18? We can utilize His call to reason. Whether in our personal lives or as an elected public official, we must carry with us the values, beliefs, principles, and standards of our faith. Doing so we will be able to reason in all environments; dealing with a family matter, a business transaction, or a public policy decision on the state, local, or federal level.

As Christians, being of good courage, reflecting truth and grace, “Come now, let us Reason together”.

Giving Thanks... Not just the What, but the Who

2010-11-24T10:30:00.002-06:00

Giving Thanks… Not just the What, but the Who.

Even absent the abundant blessings of this world, we should thank God for the gift of an eternal, personal relationship with the Creator of the universe and beyond.

Greetings:

Thanks Giving

“A National Day of Thanksgiving and to gather together in homes and places of worship on that day of thanks to affirm by their prayers and their gratitude the many blessings God has bestowed upon us." a presidential proclamation.

Please join us in celebrating a time of Giving Thanks. America’s history documents a tradition of sharing our gratitude with the Creator. In 1621 the American colonists invited their Indian friends as they celebrated the bounty of the harvest, and gave thanks to the provider of those gifts.

In 1863, understanding the need for this celebration of gratitude to be recognized nationally, Abraham Lincoln set aside the last Thursday to give thanks. Then in 1941, congress set the 4th Thursday in November as a federal holiday.

The Thanksgiving tradition has come to represent families coming together to give thanks. Even without the huge commercial component, it has survived in America for almost 400 years. The wholesomeness of families gathering to not only give thanks, but to be with those we love, provides an opportunity to reflect the love of our Creator.

Many use this opportunity to display our love to those less fortunate by serving Thanksgiving Day meals, distributing clothing, and sharing other needed resources. What a great ministry.

As much as the tradition emphasizes giving thanks for the blessings of the bounty; the agricultural harvest, freedom, our jobs, our health, peace, coal and oil, and so much more---even more so is our thankfulness for our families. The opportunity to celebrate our thankfulness for the family, with our family---is truly an awesome blessing.

And as we give thanks for the entire bounty, the what, we sometimes fail to fully recognize the Who. God provides so abundantly for us and we need to thank Him—for all we have. Nothing is from us, all is from Him. Thank you to our Sovereign Father.

Not only should we thank the Creator for the Blessings, but to thank God for Him, His Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Even absent the abundant blessings of this world, we should thank God for the gift of an eternal, personal relationship with the Creator of the universe and beyond.

Please celebrate this season of Giving Thanks by sharing with those you love by giving thanks for the many blessings to the One from whom all comes.

Marriage is becoming obsolete--The Rest of the Story

2010-11-23T16:34:00.003-06:00

Greetings:

Many have heard, read, or seen a recent story about how ‘marriage is becoming obsolete’. Thanks to Glenn Stanton who took the time to analyze the Pew Report. While not all the news is good, the report contains a measure of positive news as well. Some news outlets have chosen to report only the news negative to marriage, and one can only conjecture as to why the mainstream media chooses to present only a partial and slanted view.

• In fact, Pew’s data shows more people want to marry today than did in 2007.2

Most promising is that Pew reports, “The youngest generation has the strongest desire to marry… [with] 69 percent of unmarried 18- to 29-year-olds say[ing] they want to get married

Please read and feel free to pass along.

“Nearly 40% say marriage is becoming obsolete”

So says USA Today and the Associated Press based on a new report from the Pew Research Center.

FocusFamilyINSIGHT
Ministry Strategy– Family Formation Studies
Glenn T. Stanton

Let’s take a closer look at this new Pew Report to see the good and bad news about marriage and family in the United States. The report is a compilation of both family formation trends as well as attitudes of American adults about marriage, family and parenting. The bottom line, which is not new: Americans are actually very pro-marriage, pro-family, pro-parenting in their attitudes and deepest desires for their own lives, however not so much in their general views and practices.

First, let’s look at the “Marriage is Obsolete” claim.

The Pew report itself says this is not quite what it seems. They cite the 2006 World Values Survey (which Focus on the Family also cited in its Summer 2009 World Family Map Prototype Report) that only 13 percent of Americans agreed that “marriage is an outdated institution.” Our 2009 report also found that 90 percent of Americans disagree that marriage is an outdated institution.1

Indeed, Pew’s new data shows that 39 percent of adults agree “marriage is becoming obsolete.” But this is a general question about marriage as a social concept.

When Pew asked people about their own feelings about their present or future marital and family prospects, we see a much different picture – one that shows the majority of Americans still have a deep desire for marriage and family in their own lives. Let’s take a look at the numbers.

General Attitude About Marriage

Sixty percent of American adults currently living with someone or not yet married express a desire to marry.

• Only 13 percent of these express no interest in marrying.

• Only 16 percent of cohabiters – those we would assume are less positive on marriage - express no interest in marriage!

• In fact, Pew’s data shows more people want to marry today than did in 2007.2

Most promising is that Pew reports, “The youngest generation has the strongest desire to marry… [with] 69 percent of unmarried 18- to 29-year-olds say[ing] they want to get married.”3

Sixty-nine percent of current cohabitors express the desire and belief they will marry one day.

Tellingly, 64 percent of current and ever-cohabitors see their cohabiting as a “step toward marriage” rather than a replacement of marriage.4

General Attitude About Family

When asked “How important is your family to you at this time?”5

• 76 percent said the "most important element in my life"
• 22 percent said "one of the most important elements" of my life.
• Only 1 percent said “not important.”

Only 16 percent of Americans don’t want to have children, while 62 percent do want children.6

Sixty-one percent of Americans tend to agree a child needs a home with both a mother and father to grow up happily, down from 69 percent in Feb 2007, but similar to what it was in 1982.

Sixty-nine percent of adults believe it is “a bad thing for society” for more single women to be having babies without a man to help raise them.8

When asked “What is important for a man as a good husband?”

93% said “a good father”
89% said “caring and compassionate”
82% said one who “Puts his family first”
41% said “provides a good income”
32% said “good at household chores”
36% said “is well educated”
48% said “is a good sexual partner”9

When asked, “what is important for a woman as a good wife?

90% “a good mother
90% “caring and compassionate
74% “puts her family before all else
48% “a good sexual partner
39% “well educated
28% “good at household chores
19% “provides a good income”

More Americans are more optimistic about “the institution of marriage and family” (67 percent) in our country than are optimistic about “our system of education” (50 percent) or “the moral and ethical standards in our country” (41 percent).10

Marrieds themselves are most likely (84 percent) to say they were “very satisfied with family life,” followed by the widowed (78 percent), those living with a partner (71 percent), the single (66 percent) and lastly, the divorced and separated at 50 percent.11

The Bad News on Marriage

We need to recognize there is plenty of bad news on marriage in the Pew Report, particularly that the marriage rate and the rate of children living with married parents continues to decline, while the cohabitation rates and out-of-wedlock birthrates continue to climb dramatically.

Forty-three percent believe it “doesn’t make much difference” whether more unmarried couples are raising children together and 43 percent believe it’s a bad thing for society. Only 10 percent believe it is good for society.

In regard to whether more women not ever having children is a good thing, 55 percent believe it doesn’t really make any difference, while 29 percent believe it is bad for society and only 11 percent think it good for society.12

Forty-six percent of Americans believe it doesn’t make much difference whether more couples live together outside marriage, while 43 percent believe it is bad for society.

Concerning more gay and lesbian couples raising children, 43 percent believe it is a bad thing for society, 41 percent believe it doesn’t really matter and only 12 percent believe it to be a good thing.13

The large number of “doesn’t really matter” respondents is concerning. These are the family relativists and their numbers are significant. Overall, this Pew Report is a very good and interesting report that all serious and curious students of the family should take time over the next week to read and consider in our work to strengthen both people’s perceptions and behaviors on marriage and family.

1 Pew Research Center, “The Decline of Marriage and the Rise of New Families,” November 18, 2010, p. 25.; W. Bradford Wilcox, et al., World Family Map Project, Prototype Report, Published with ChildTrends and Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, Summer 2009), p. 8.
2 Pew, “Decline of Marriage,” 2010, p. 92, Q. 21,
3 Pew, “Decline of Marriage,” 2010, p. 36.
4 Pew, “Decline of Marriage,” 2010, p. 92, Q. 20, Q. 19.
5 Pew, “Decline of Marriage,” 2010, p. 88, Q. 7.
6 Pew, “Decline of Marriage,” 2010, p. 94, Q. 22a.
7 Pew, “Decline of Marriage,” 2010, p. 90, Q. 10.
8 Pew, “Decline of Marriage,” 2010, p. 89, Q. 9c.
9 Pew, “Decline of Marriage,” 2010, p. 94, Q. 23.
10 Pew, “Decline of Marriage,” 2010, p. 82, Q. 2.
11 Pew, “Decline of Marriage,” 2010, p. 18.
12 Pew, “Decline of Marriage,” 2010, p. 88, Q. 9a,b.
13Pew, “Decline of Marriage,” 2010, p. 89, Q. 9e,d.

Colson on Christian Citizenship

2010-08-30T14:42:00.004-05:00

In our list of 10 points in a Plan to Save America, today’s focus is #1.

1) Acknowledge the centrality of faith in America

a. We call for the right to publicly acknowledge God and the protection of our religious freedom.

In a Citizen Link interview with Catherine Snow, Chuck Colson responds to questions in regard to “Religious Freedom and Christian Citizenship”

Colson replies to a number of questions including: Why should a parent care about public policy, how about separation of church and state, and how about this not so subtle shift from freedom of religion to freedom of worship?

Learn the truth in the statement, ‘fads start from the top down, while movements start from the bottom up’. Understand that movements change society, and movements require public involvement.

Read Colson’s response to how the change to ‘freedom of worship’, depending on the interpretation could actually diminish our religious liberties, and draw us closer to the level of religious freedom available in China, Saudi Arabia, and the Soviet Union.

Please read the interview in its entirety.

FRIDAY FIVE: Chuck Colson on Religious Freedom and Christian Citizenship
Posted by Catherine Snow

Chuck Colson was radically transformed in 1973, from being the “hatchet man” for President Richard Nixon and incarcerated on Watergate-related charges to a humble Christian servant, seeking to bring reform and Christian outreach to those in prison. A noted author and speaker, Colson now focuses on cultural issues, the reclamation of morals and equipping the next generation with a biblical worldview.

1. One of the key issues that you speak to involves the freedom of religion –domestically and internationally. You have done so much to bring attention to Christian persecution around the globe. How would you rate Christian persecution today?

All human beings are created in the image of God. Everybody has human rights. When they are suppressed it goes to the very heart of what we believe about society. That’s why Christians have always been the greatest fighters for human rights. There is a constant battle between the authoritarianism of the state and the individual liberty of the citizen. This is true all over the world.

Persecution is a term that means that an entity is trying to drive you out of society. Religious persecution is openly done in China, the Sudan, and in North Korea.

In the West, however, we are now seeing a subtle persecution. It’s an attempt on the part of the state to begin to diminish our religious freedoms, because as we exercise those freedoms, we’re making a Christian impact on society.

We live in a very secular age. We have lost the term “Christian West” and we’ve got to get it back. It’s what makes the West unique. So, that’s the battle going on in our country right now.

If you were to rate religious freedom in the United Kingdom it’s probably about a three or four out of a possible 10. In Canada, it’s three or four. Here in America, we’ve always been 10, until the beginning of those cases in the ’50s and ’60s, which began to eliminate prayer in schools and the right of Christian groups to gather and make their witness.

It’s been steadily eroding since then. We’re at about a five today.

We have to fight for religious freedom –not because we want to protect Christians, but because we want to protect the human rights of all people made in the image of God. That’s all humanity.

2. The Obama administration has shifted from using the phrase “freedom of religion” to “freedom of worship.” Would you please explain the distinction?

I saw that President Obama was using this term ‘freedom of worship’ instead of ‘freedom of religion.’ That’s not an unintentional slip. That’s a deliberate policy change.

Worship is one thing that means a private act; my communication with God, but not public actions. When you say freedom of religion, it means I am free to act as a citizen and express my religiously informed views. I’m free to try to organize groups to press for public policy questions.

And, Hillary Clinton gave a speech at Georgetown last fall, where she talked about the basic human rights to assemble and to form your own government, to worship and to love others as you choose.

So loving a person, even if it’s a same-sex relationship, is the equivalent of worship. This is very, very frightening!

Remember, the first right granted in the Bill of Rights by our Founders was the freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. Now it’s being equated with homosexual rights? I thought that was a slip of the tongue until I read the policy statements of the Department of State, which said now these two terms are interchangeable.

Freedom of worship today exists in China. It exists in the Soviet Union. It exists actually in Saudi Arabia.

If you want to go into your house, and you want to go into your embassy, and you want to have mass or you want to have service or you want to read from the Bible, you can do that. The American embassy in Riyadh has services for Protestants and Catholics every weekend.

In China, the state church has complete freedom of worship, protected by the state. But, if a Chinese pastor speaks about a public policy issue from the pulpit, he’s off to jail. That’s what I see coming here.

That’s why I signed the Manhattan Declaration. I think it’s the most important thing going on in America today in terms of policy; to be able to take a stand on the major moral issues of the day.

Life, family and marriage, and religious liberty are the burning issues. Those are the threshold to all other issues.

I want to a million people to sign it. It’s across the denominational lines. It’s the historic Christian faith. People who can confess the creeds and believe in the Bible are coming together to take a united stand.

We’ve only invited people who can pledge their belief and faith and commitment to the word of God. We are speaking to the two great fundamental issues. 470,000 people have signed it; but, we want a million. Go to the website at www.ManhattanDeclaration.org. But, don’t just sign on. Get your friends.

3. You’re a fan of William Wilberforce. As I talk to younger people, they don’t know who he was. Can you explain who he was and what his relevancy is in today’s society? How did he shape your thinking about Christian participation in the public square?

No one in history has had more of an influence on my life than William Wilberforce. He was a Parliamentarian in England. He came from the upper class of society, but he was converted, and it was remarkable when he was. He was a young man rising in Parliament in the 1780s, and he then became a very active Christian. He took on the campaign to abolish the slave trade, because that was the most heinous violation of human rights ever. This outraged his Christian conscious, so he stood alone on the floor of Parliament and denounced it. The battle went on for twenty years.

Go see Amazing Grace. It tells his story. It’s beautifully done. He made this successful stand and the slave trade was abolished in 1807. Slavery itself was abolished in 1833, five days before he died. The interesting thing is that he never let his focus be just politics. He knew that you couldn’t change things with just politics. He famously said ‘God has given me two great objectives: the abolition of the slave trade and the reformation of manners.’ He understood that you could end this systemic evil; but unless you at the same time worked to change the attitudes and habits and beliefs of the people, you weren’t going to solve the problem. He did both. He took on a hundred different causes over those next thirty five years that he lived. He should be a model for us today as to how we engage the public square.

He overcame just about every obstacle anybody could overcome. He had this violent problem with his stomach and was constantly sick. He was called every name in the book because the slave traders had bought seats in the Parliament. They controlled it. He was defamed his whole life. He kept pressing on.

He understood something which we need to grasp today because the circumstances are very similar. You belonged in the public square in politics. Christians have a duty to be engaged in the political process. The very least we should be doing is voting. We should be the best of citizens. We should bring the values of the kingdom of God to bear in the kingdom of man. That means voting. It means getting involved in politics. It means arguing before the school board. It means all the things Christians should do as citizens. But don’t put your element of trust there. Politics has become so big and powerful and controlled by the special interests that the only way it’s going to be reformed is the culture. And when you stop to think about it, politics is simply a reflection of the values of the culture. You change the culture, you will change the politics. If politics is sick, it means the culture is sick and we Christians are responsible for the culture.

So, get engaged in culture to begin to change the public attitudes, because that will be reflected ultimately in how the country is changed. I hope everybody gets involved and gets active and prays. This fall, the Pray and Act campaign will have Christians praying and fasting across the country for life, marriage, and liberty.

4. Why should any parent – any American – care about public policy and politics? What about the so-called separation of church and state?

The child they’re raising is going to be shaped not only by their paternal-maternal responsibility, but by the culture around us. We are products of both nature and nurture. And there’s no way you can have that child, no matter how well you’ve protected them, go off to a public school today without having everything that you believe to be sacred challenged. So you’ve got to care about what’s going on. I know what it is to be busy and work hard and be preoccupied with things. The same way you need a devotional time in the morning, you also need a time when you’re reflecting on what’s going on in the world around you and how you can be engaged in it.

Worry about what’s going on in your own school board. Worry about what’s going on in your own neighborhood, in your own county, with your own county officials.

I’m a great believer in what Nesbit said. ‘Fads start from the top down. Movements start from the bottom up.’ Movements change society. There are people today saying we Christians shouldn’t be involved with these things and to just be a faithful presence where we are. That’s bad advice.

We need to be involved with the world around us because we live as Christians with a worldview which is in conflict with the worldview of the society we live in. We should be constantly, winsomely, lovingly pushing Christian truth into the public square.

The whole separation of church and state is something that the ACLU loves to have you think prevents you from doing things. It really doesn’t. Separation of church and state is one thing. Separation of religion and politics is entirely different. Religion and politics deal with the same sphere. Religion is how people organize their lives together. Aristotle said ‘politics is how we organize our common lives together.’ So we’re talking about how people live.

I wrote a book called How Now Shall We Live. It’s about how Christians bring Christian truth into all of life. So never separate religion and politics. Separate church and state only that you’re respectful of the fact that there is a civic order and a religious and moral order for which we’re responsible.

5. Many say the 2010 election is the most important in our lifetime. Is this true? If so, what can people do?

It’s an important election of course because the government is taking on to itself unlimited powers that used to be reserved for the people. So there’s a great threat to freedom in American today.

There’s also a great threat to our economy and whether we can survive with these kinds of burgeoning deficits. I don’t think we can. But, all elections are important.

Don’t put your hope in the political system or in one party or the other. I know a lot of Republicans that I liked and respected and then they got into office and they got corrupted by the system. The system is inherently corruptive for Republicans or Democrats.

RE: Religious Liberty Restoration Amendment petition drive will CONTINUE

2010-08-04T16:00:00.000-05:00

RE: Religious Liberty Restoration Amendment petition drive will CONTINUE

Greetings:

The good news is that the RLRA petition drive gathered 22,000 signatures. WOW, thanks to those 22,000. The less than good news is that a total of 25,688 signatures were needed to be turned in to the Secretary of State by August 4th for the issue to be placed on this November’s ballot. Even though that deadline will not be met, the RLRA petition drive will continue to completion.

We are so thankful to the almost 500 circulators, and those thousands who signed the petition. Your signatures will be utilized for the intended purpose, and were not gathered in vain. We will gather additional signatures in the next few months, and added to those already gathered will put this measure on the ballot in 2012. (By law an initiated measure has one year to secure the required signatures) So we have additional time to collect signatures.

Very importantly, if you have petitions with signatures, do not destroy. Continue to collect signatures. If you have a petition which is already notarized, send it in. If you have a petition and have not started to collect signatures, you now have additional time to collect signatures. We will share a timetable for the next phase of the collections, soon.

More than half of the signatures were gathered in the last three weeks, signifying the growing momentum of the effort. The message of protecting the freedom of religion and the exercise thereof, guaranteed in the First Amendment—really began resonating with the people. Those signatures strongly endorse the will of the people to vote on this measure.

This is a great cause. We believe God’s hand has been guiding us all the way, and will continue. We seek His discerning wisdom and His will. And we believe His plan is being played out. And so now we conclude this phase of the RLRA effort, by giving all the honor, the glory, and the praise to God, our Father the Almighty.

July 22nd RLRA Update

2010-07-22T18:13:00.001-05:00

Greetings:

As we head into the weekend, we have 13 days to gather signatures for the RLRA petition effort. Thanks to all who have worked so hard. Keep up the intensity down the home stretch. While thousands of signatures have been collected, many more are needed. Keep up the great work!!

Some have asked for short message to rally around, here is part of an ad which captures it in a nutshell:

“Whether prohibiting a student from wearing a cross to school, forcing a nurse to dispense abortion inducing drugs, or forcing a business to provide services against its beliefs—our religious freedoms are in jeopardy because of a court ruling by non-elected justices. It is time to act!! Sign the Religious Liberty Restoration Amendment to allow the people of North Dakota to vote to restore and preserve our religious liberties.

Thanks to those who helped in the Bismarck & Grand Forks Blitz’s, and in advance to those who will help in Minot at the State Fair. Still need more volunteers…in Minot…………………….

What will, should, and needs to happen in the upcoming few days:

- Many churches will do one more collection in the church,---thanks….encourage your church..

- Some churches will do an initial collection—GREAT NEWS!! Encourage your church…

- Will be collecting at the State Fair in Minot (Booth #2003 in Commercial Bldg #3)

o Stop by to sign petition, direct others to do so as well

o Will have clipboards with a petition for you to pick up & go out at the fair & fill one petition with 35 signatures

- many of you have a petition, (from NDFA, Focus on the Family, NDCC, your church, or you may have downloaded), we need you to fill that petition with signatures of family, friends, neighbors, and church family

o There are virtually hundreds, if not thousands of petitions in the hands of individuals from across the state, we should not rest until every one is filled, notarized, and returned. Do you have one? Please fill & send in.

- We have extended the deadline to send the petitions in—to—July 31st if mailed, or August 3rd, if hand delivered to the NDFA office!!

As shared previously, we are so encouraged and inspired on a daily basis by the hundreds of individuals circulating the petitions, and the many thousand who have signed—their commitment and voices must be rewarded. You can do that by joining the team and this great effort by participating: complete your petition, encourage at your local church, come & help at the State Fair in Minot, and of course---pray that God’s will be done & that all be for His Glory.

Any with questions should call the NDFA, or go to the website at:

www.ndfa.org/ndreligiousliberty.php

NDFA Files Brief Supporting National Day of Prayer,

2010-07-07T10:58:00.004-05:00

NORTH DAKOTA FAMILY ALLIANCE
A TRUSTED VOICE IMPACTING OUR LEGACY________

PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release – July 7, 2010

Media Interviews
NDFA Executive Director Tom Freier
tfreier@ndfa.org
701-364-0676; 701-471-0477 cell
www.ndfa.org

NDFA Files Brief Supporting National Day of Prayer,
Joins With Alliance of Top State and National Policy Leaders Demanding Reversal of Revisionist Opinion

Fargo. Today, North Dakota Family Alliance signed onto an amicus brief by Liberty Institute filed in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in support of the National Day of Prayer in Freedom from Religion Foundation v. Obama. Those represented in the brief alongside North Dakota Family Alliance include Dr. James Dobson, the Family Research Council (FRC), Focus on the Family Action (Citizenlink), the American Civil Rights Union (ACRU), Let Freedom Ring, and Liberty Counsel, along with 27 other family policy councils located in states nationwide.

“In her decision to strike down the National Day of Prayer, Judge Barbara Crabb attempted to undo two hundred years of American History,” said Tom Freier, Executive Director of NDFA. “The decision below was an attack upon our heritage and the religious freedom upon which our nation was founded. This decision must be overturned.”

When Congress passed a statute in 1952 calling for the President to issue a proclamation designating the National Day of Prayer, it memorialized the virtually unbroken tradition of Presidents from Washington to Truman who designated a day of prayer.

On April 15, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb ruled that the federal government’s observation of prayer is unconstitutional, despite numerous rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court that protect long-standing traditions of religious invocations. Today’s brief argues that not only is the National Day of Prayer constitutional, but that Judge Crabb’s ruling establishes active hostility to religion and must be reversed.

“Prayer is the underpinning of this country that makes it great. I am proud to file this brief along with so many wonderful groups. Our nation has a rich history of Presidential proclamations for prayer and thanksgiving, and we must not allow revisionist history to dilute that heritage and freedom,” said Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family and head of Family Talk with Dr. James Dobson.

"Since the conception of our nation, Americans have enjoyed religious freedom and the right to gather voluntarily for prayer," said Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council Action. "Judge Barbara Crabb's ruling squelches the religious freedom our Founding Fathers chose to protect in the Constitution and advances an activist agenda that is hostile toward religion in public life."

View the brief online at http://tinyurl.com/2837gj5.

North Dakota Family Alliance
3220 18th St S, Ste 8
Fargo, ND 58104
701-364-0676

For more information, visit www.ndfa.org.

Copyright © 2010 North Dakota Family Alliance

Liberty--Is it worth defending?

2010-06-30T13:20:00.002-05:00

Liberty—Is it worth defending?

Independence Day—2010! Freedom! Liberty! A great reason to celebrate. Fireworks! Sunday worship! What a great land we live in—this land we call America!

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Just as there is no business ethics, no personal ethics, no cultural ethics, no political ethics, there is only ethics. If we believe we can act ethically in our business, but fail to follow those tenets in our home, we lie. There is only ethics, there is only integrity, there is only honesty.

So is the liberty provided by our Founding Fathers. There is only liberty. If we believe we can diminish our personal liberties, we loose our liberty. If we believe we can give some of our constitutional liberties, we loose our liberty. If we believe the government can infringe upon our religious liberties, we loose our liberty.

Because our Founding Fathers recognized the importance of the Creator and those unalienable rights, which are a gift not to be surrendered or taken, our religious liberty is especially vital. Some recognize if our religious liberty is diminished or removed, all liberty is mortally threatened. Absent the power of a sovereign Supreme Being, the peace and tranquility associated with our liberty is soon to become a distant memory of a generation past.

Today’s battle to protect our religious liberty is both the battle and the war. It is a test to measure the mettle of this land we call America, the people of North Dakota.

On this Fourth of July weekend, will we celebrate by just shooting off fireworks, enjoying a picnic, singing patriotic songs, and even thanking the Creator at a worship service—or will we take action?

Will we take the Religious Liberty Restoration Amendment with us to the parade, to the lake, to the picnic, to the fireworks celebration, to the school reunion, to the community church service, or to any gathering planned to honor our country and the liberty we enjoy. Is that outside of our comfort range? Will we be viewed as radical, religious nuts? Will we be bold for our faith? Will we be radical enough to stand up for our religious liberty?
Will we be bold enough to stand up for our children and grandchildren?

This weekend provides a great opportunity. It provides the opportunity to celebrate all our Creator has Blessed us with, especially our liberty and freedom. It also provides the opportunity to stand tall as we take action to preserve that unalienable right to liberty freely given as a gift.

Please proudly circulate the Religious Liberty Restoration Amendment petition, and carry a couple extra petitions that you might place them with other patriots.

And as we ask others to sign, compare our effort to that of those who over the years paid the ultimate sacrifice to defend our liberty.

May God Bless you and keep you safe, in this great land we call America.

For more information on the Religious Liberty Restoration Amendment, view an informative video, and/or download a petition, go to www.ndfa.org .

Memorial Day A Time to Reflect

2010-05-28T10:13:00.001-05:00

Memorial Day A Time to Reflect

As we prepare for an extended weekend, it truly is a time to reflect. In the midst of spending time with family and friends, the picnics, fishing, time at the lake, parades, speeches, and even prayers and sermons; are we really commemorating our fallen heroes? Are we keeping in perspective the real purpose of Memorial Day as we spend our time this weekend?

As we view the markers at the Arlington National Cemetery, or our own North Dakota Veterans Cemetery, we can only be struck by the immensity of the personal sacrifice of the many. As we think about the many hundreds of thousands who paid the ultimate price, we also understand the personal story of each and every fallen soldier. Each family has lost a father, a mother, a son, a daughter, some one dear and loved to them. As each fallen soldier has responded to the call, has made the ultimate sacrifice, their families also share in their serving their country.

Since the inception of our country, we know that our freedoms, our liberty does not come without a price. These brave American men and women have pledged to protect our liberty, to defend it even if it meant their lives. They have fought to defend all of our liberties. As we view the Bill of Rights, we thank the framers of the constitution, the Founding Fathers, for providing those rights. We thank the many today for defending these rights; there are many who on a daily basis fight to protect our freedom of religion, of speech, the right to assemble, for a fair trial, and the right for all to cast their vote. But let us remember, not just during this Memorial Day celebration, but throughout the year—that the real defenders of our liberty are those brave veterans who died for our freedom, the liberty that is America.

The very first of those liberties is our freedom of religion. Today that freedom is under attack, on a daily basis. Our brave men and woman who paid the ultimate price, died for all our liberties, including the freedom of religion. Let us not dishonor their memory and service by not standing for this freedom provided by our Founding Fathers.

The actions of our Founding Fathers called for boldness, and an unapologetic commitment to this inalienable right given by the Creator. Our fallen soldiers stepped forward in absolute boldness in defending our liberties. Now is the time that all of us would honor their memories by stepping forward to defend our country, and the liberties we treasure so greatly.

Our Prayer:

We are Blessed, so immensely Blessed. We praise You as the Creator and Sustainer of all. Thank You. We thank You for the brave men and women who paid the ultimate price, defending this land we call America, protecting the liberties we have come to treasure, and providing the hope for our children and grandchildren to live in freedom. We lift up the families of those fallen heroes, that they might be blessed with the peace and comfort which only You can provide.

We ask all of this in the name which is above all names, the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen.

Government videographer asks Salvation Army T-shirts be changed.

2010-05-26T14:40:00.003-05:00

What does wearing the Rosary beads, a Salvation Army T-shirt, and saying a prayer have in common?

New York 7th grader suspended for wearing a Rosary to his school. Raymond Hosier, 13 year old wears the Rosary as a comfort in memory of a deceased brother and uncle. Schenectady school officials ordered him to remove the Rosary, and when he refused, he was sent home.

School officials referenced school policy stating that the Rosary “could be an identifier of gangs” and needed to be removed “for safety reasons”. After Raymond served the initial suspension, he returned to school only to be sent home again because of his wearing the beads.

The Supreme Court is very clear that students do not surrender their constitutional rights to religious expression or liberties when they go to school. What is very clear is that the school is arbitrarily using a vague dress code to silence and suppress Raymond’s religious expression and liberty.

Government videographer asks volunteers to change Salvation Army T-shirts
A FEMA representative said one of the agency's videographers was "absolutely wrong" to ask Mississippi church volunteers not to wear religious T-shirts for a video about tornado cleanup. Angelia Lott and Pamela Wedgeworth, who are sisters, said that the FEMA worker videotaping the cleanup on Saturday in the small town of Ebenezer asked them to do on-camera interviews but requested that they change out of their T-shirts because of a Salvation Army logo. "He said, 'We would like to ask you to change your shirt because we don't want anything faith-based,'" Lott said Tuesday.

These faith based volunteers should have the right to wear a T-shirt expressing their view of support for the Salvation Army, and should not be suppressed. This is clearly a right protected constitutionally.

Kudos to Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell on prayer policy

In the first official State Police function since Gov. Bob McDonnell lifted a policy requiring faith-neutral prayers at public events, a trooper invoked the name of Jesus Christ in a blessing at a Friday morning memorial service. "I lift this prayer to you from the many faiths of this great country and in the name of my personal savior, Jesus Christ, amen," Senior Trooper Patrick McCranie prayed during the benediction at the end of the ceremony.

The annual memorial ceremony honored 55 troopers killed while members of the state police force, from 1928 to the most recent death in 2007. Trooper McCranie said he felt ‘liberated’ for being able to pray in support of all faiths, but be able to pray in his personal faith tradition.

Already, ACLU activists are seeking someone to represent, someone who may have been offended. They will ask the government to sue the government. How silly is that?
McDonnell doesn't seem worried about the specter of legal action. "The only thing I'm concerned about is that we promote the traditions of religious liberty that have been the hallmark of the nation," he said. "And as long as I'm governor, we're not going to tell chaplains how to pray."

Kudos to the governor!

As we view the culture across this great country of ours, we are struck by the constant, never ending attacks on our religious liberties. And if we do not stand up for our liberties, how can be hope that our children and grandchildren will know the freedoms which our founding fathers provided for in the constitution?

ACTION REQUIRED! Religious Liberty Restoration Amendment

2010-05-14T09:22:00.003-05:00

ACTION REQUIRED!

Your help is crucial to get the RLRA on the N.D. November ballot.

Religious Liberty Restoration Amendment

Religious Liberties Threatened: What’s all the hype about?
Have you noticed the frequent news stories about attacks on our religious liberties?

Did you know that a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in1990 greatly diminished our religious liberties?

Did you know that Congress passed a law to restore those rights in1993, but it did not apply to the states? Because of this 15 states have already passed legislation to restore those rights.

NOW is the time to act for North Dakota by passing the very best in protection: a N.D. Constitutional amendment to restore our liberties.

Bottom Line: What is the urgency?

The result of that Supreme Court ruling had this effect: The burden has fallen to the people and religious organizations to protect themselves from the government infringing upon their religious liberties, instead of the burden rightly being placed on the government as it seeks to infringe on our religious freedoms. The Constitution provided a system of justice whereby the burden is placed on the government, not the people. This amendment will restore and protect our religious liberty.

ACTION List: What can you do?

1) Sign the RLRA petition. (Download a petition at www.ndfa.org/ndreligiousliberty.php. Remember you cannot sign the petition you plan to circulate.)

2) Verify the RLRA petition is being circulated in your church, visit with your pastor/priest and help coordinate the effort.

3) Make others aware of the RLRA petition drive by:
a. Notifying your email list
b. Talking to your Facebook friends
c. Tweeting on Twitter about the RLRA

4) Take the Times Three Pledge (X3P) Challenge
a . Print 3 copies of the petition.
b. Carry one to your Bible study, Rotary Club, workplace, gym/spa, coffee klatch.
c. Collect 35 signatures on that petition and place the other 2 petitions with two of those who signed your petition.

Steps to involvement and frequently asked questions can be found at: www.ndfa.org/ndreligiousliberty.php. Contact NDFA at admin@ndfa.org or 701-364-0676 or www.ndfa.org.

Please join the North Dakota Family Alliance in the effort to Restore our Religious Liberties.
www.ndfa.org/ndreligiousliberty.php

North Dakota Family Alliance, 3220 18th St. S. Ste. #8, Fargo, ND 58104
On behalf of all our coalition partners.

Religious Liberty Restoration Amendment
Government may not burden a person's or religious organization’s Freedom of Religion.
The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief
may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A burden includes indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.

2010-05-11T17:24:00.002-05:00

Thanks to Focus on the Family for promoting the Religious Liberty Restoration Amendment effort.

Take Action: from Focus on the Family

Please sign a petition to protect religious Liberty in North Dakota!

To get a petition and to find out more information about the Religious Liberty Restoration Amendment, visit the North Dakota Family Alliance web site, at www.ndfa.org.

North Dakota: Help Protect Religious Liberty in Your State!

Dear Friend,

Religious liberty is a treasured freedom on which our country was founded. In fact, our Founding Fathers chose to place religious liberty first in our U.S. Constitution for that reason. And for most of our country's history, laws and the court system have recognized and protected that right.

But in 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a ruling which reduced the level of protection historically afforded to religious liberty. In Employment Division v. Smith, the Court established a lower threshold of protection for religious liberty--an action that prompted Congress to pass the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). But the federal RFRA does not apply to the states, leaving citizens vulnerable to ill-conceived actions of state governments that infringe on our liberties.

We are seeing professionals from every walk of life being forced to violate their religious beliefs in fear of governmental punishment. For example, medical professionals have been fired for refusing to conduct abortions or dispense medicine that can cause an abortion. Additionally, there were several court cases in North Dakota during the 1980s where parents were denied the right to home school their children. It seems that the religious liberty our country was founded upon is slowly being chipped away.

And the recent court ruling from a Wisconsin District Court Judge declaring the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional only further emphasizes the need for North Dakotans to step in and protect religious freedom at the state level.

The only way a state can truly protect this freedom is through a constitutional amendment to their state Constitution adding this protection. Fortunately, the people of North Dakota have an opportunity to place a Religious Liberty Restoration Amendment on the November ballot. The North Dakota Family Alliance is currently working to collect enough signatures to place the amendment on the ballot, and they need your help to get that done.

Forward to a Friend or share with your Social Network:
Facebook Twitter MySpace Delicious Digg

© 2010, Focus on the Family.

Focus on the Family
Colorado Springs, CO 80995
1-800-A-FAMILY (232-6459)

Source Code: VP10EECRND

Who is protecting our religious liberties?

2010-05-10T22:13:00.003-05:00

It seems everyday brings another story about our religious liberties under attack. Whether in Georgia, where seniors are being told they cannot pray before a meal, or in Texas where a church is fighting to meet in its own church, the government is forcing those of faith to protect themselves from the government. Constitutionally, our government is to protect its people, and yet in reality, when it comes to our religious liberties, the people need to protect themselves from the government.

Port Wentworth, Ga.

The mayor of a Georgia town remains hopeful he won't have to stomach telling elderly citizens they cannot pray before meals at a senior center.

If there's one thing Mayor Glenn "Pig" Jones can't stomach, it's telling elderly citizens at a local senior citizens center that they can't pray before meals.

But Jones, mayor of Port Wentworth, Ga., a town of roughly 3,000 near Savannah, has been doing just that since last week, when the company that provides food for the seniors -- with federal funding -- determined that saying an organized prayer before meals violates the separation of church and state.

Instead of a communal prayer, they said, seniors should observe a moment of silence.

Now Jones says he hopes a meeting on Tuesday with the city's attorney and officials from the Ed Young Senior Citizens Center will settle the controversy.

"What I'm hoping for is that our people get with their people and they say, 'Go back and tell your people they can pray,'" Jones told FoxNews.com. "We'll see where we stand."

Officials from Senior Citizens Inc., which operates the senior center, have said the meals they provide to visitors are mostly covered with federal money -- so saying a communal prayer before chowing down is a violation of federal regulations.

"We can't scoff at their rules," Tim Rutherford, Senior Citizens Inc.'s vice president, told the Associated Press. "It's part of the operational guidelines."

Rutherford, who did not respond to messages seeking comment on Monday, said his company provides meals like baked chicken, steak tips and salads for roughly $6 a plate. Seniors who eat the meals pay 55 cents apiece, he said, with federal money footing the rest of the bill.

Rutherford said the moment of silence was introduced at the center to protect that funding. He insisted anyone at the center can worship whomever they please.

"It's interpreted that we're telling people that they can't pray, but we aren't saying that," he said. "We're asking them to pray to themselves. Have that moment of silence."

Casey Arnett, director of the senior center, said officials are trying to enforce the moment of silence, but she acknowledged they have little power to stop anyone intent on saying a prayer before digging in.

"We are trying to enforce a moment of silence, but it's freedom of speech and freedom of religion, so we don't have control of what they do," Arnett told FoxNews.com. "If they stand up and pray, I don't have any control over it."

She said the seniors who visit the center are no strangers to standing up for what they believe. "They're not going to let people tell them their rights about religion," she said. "They feel like they need to stand for theirs."

Eric Johnson, a former state senator now running for governor, visited the center Monday and said a blessing outside just before lunch to roughly 50 elderly citizens.

"I told them they're not fighting this alone," Johnson, a Republican, told FoxNews.com. "To heck with the federal government -- we can't stop people from free practice of their faith."

Meanwhile, Jones, who said he was so "outraged" upon learning of the controversy that he couldn't appear for on-camera interviews last week, is confident a compromise can be made.

"This country means a lot to me, but the part that I don't respect is it telling me I cannot pray over my meal," Jones said. "I can't accept and look them 65- and 70-year-olds in the eyes and tell them they cannot pray and bless their meals."

Texas Church Fights to Meet in its Own Building

Leon Valley, Texas
Elijah Group, an Evangelical Christian Church, is fighting City Hall in Leon Valley, Texas. The city says it's fine for the church to use the facilities for a day care and counseling center, but it cannot meet in the building for worship on the weekends because of zoning laws.

Lori Windham, senior counsel at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said the city is ignoring the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) in order to make revenue from retail businesses.

"The City of Leon Valley near San Antonio used to allow churches to locate all over the city," she said. "Then they went back and said, 'We're only going to allow churches in one of the 13 zones.' My client came in. They bought a church building. It's always been a church building. And the city said 'Nope. Sorry. It can't be used as a church building anymore. We want this to be a retail store.'"

Windham and The Becket Fund are suing, asking the court to rule on behalf of religious liberty.

"We're asking the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to say that cities can't do this," she said, "that cities have to treat churches the same way they would treat other assemblies that do make them money.

"The implications for churches across the state are enormous," she added. "Leon Valley wants to set a precedent saying that cities can treat churches worse than secular assemblies simply because churches don't generate enough tax revenue."

Losing our Religion from an atheist's perspective

2010-05-03T16:01:00.005-05:00

As we contemplate our religious liberties, and the state of those freedoms, it is interesting to hear from the perspective of an atheist. In her book, on a recent television interview, and now in this interview--she speaks candidly about the attack on Christians. And the need to wake up.

4-30-10

Friday Five: S.E. Cupp Talks About Losing Our Religion

by Kim Trobee, editor

S.E. Cupp is one of the most influential Millennials in American culture today. She has appeared on Fox News Channel and CNN and is a regular guest on "Hannity."

1. S.E., you make no bones about being an atheist. Why defend Christianity against the liberal media?

I think being an atheist or a nonbeliever makes me the perfect candidate to address this issue, because I approach it entirely objectively. My agenda here isn't to prop up my own belief system, but to defend others' rights to believe in something I don't, and more importantly, to demand a more responsible, representative press.

2. You say Christians are the only acceptable people for the media to make fun of. Expound on that.

Hollywood started treating Christianity like it was some kind of social disease decades ago. These days, it's practically company policy in Hollywood to mock Christianity as hopelessly uncool and unsophisticated. The liberal media has, in the past 10 years or so, joined in the action. I think they've both been so successful in promoting that message in the popular culture, because Christians represent a vast majority -- and majorities get complacent. But, if Christian America doesn't stand up to the liberal media and demand more respect, they might not be a majority in the future.

3. Why do you think the mainstream media feel the need to target Christian America?

Two reasons: One, it's a way of getting at conservatism. If they can effectively paint Christians as dangerous fanatics, it's just a skip away from painting conservatives as dangerous fanatics. They conflate politics and religion here because, well, it works. Two, the moral relativism of liberalism is threatened by the fixed value system of Christianity, which holds people accountable for their actions. Liberalism can dismiss a lot of bad behavior, and that's just the way they like it. Liberals in the media are deeply mistrusting of, and uncomfortable with, judgmental morality.

4. The media used to challenge the government—that was really its job. How is that lack of accountability affecting our nation?

That's right, the Fourth Estate used to be the watchdogs of the state, and now the media is targeting YOU, the private citizen. It's targeting your values, your beliefs, your freedoms, your politics, your way of life, all to advance a secular, liberal agenda of its own. Well that's not what the press is there for; that's not its responsibility. The mainstream media has lost its way -- it can either rediscover responsible journalism, or it should repackage itself as an alternative press, which in many ways, it is.

5. What should concerned Christians do to change the situation?

Peaceful protest. I'm shocked that there aren't protesters outside of The New York Times, MSNBC, CNN, etc. on a daily basis protesting the way Christians are talked about. The liberal media calls Christians terrorists, extremists, simpletons and much, much worse. They treat them like they are pariahs. Well, I'd like Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow and Lisa Miller and Glenn Greenwald and the rest of them to feel like pariahs. Instead, they're protected within a tiny, liberal, secular bubble, and they have no idea that the majority of the country shudders in disgust when they attack the values upon which America was founded. I think it's time Christian America woke from their slumber and saw just how bad it's gotten.

Religious Liberty Restoration Amendment Moves Forward

2010-04-30T15:03:00.002-05:00

PRESS RELEASE

April 30, 2010

Religious Liberty Restoration Amendment Moves Forward

Secretary of State approves petition for circulation

Fargo, ND

A coalition including civic leaders and representatives of different religious traditions have launched an effort to pass an amendment to the state constitution that will restore religious liberties in North Dakota. On Friday Secretary of State Al Jaeger approved the ‘Religious Liberty Restoration Amendment’ initiated constitutional measure, enabling the petition process to proceed.

“We are excited to begin gathering signatures, and the overall educational process. We believe the people in North Dakota will be very receptive to the measure”, states Tom Freier, executive director of North Dakota Family Alliance. Supporters must turn in total of 25,688 signatures to the Secretary of State’s office by August 4th for the initiative to qualify for the November ballot.

The proposed measure states “government may not burden a person’s or religious organization’s religious liberty”. A 1990 U.S. Supreme Court decision greatly diminished this protection. “This amendment restores the level of religious protection everyone had prior to Supreme Court decision. The federal government and many others states have acted to restore that protection,” states Christopher Dodson, executive director of the North Dakota Catholic Conference, a coalition partner. “This amendment would extend the same protection to North Dakotans”.

The sponsoring committee of the initiative indicates broad support for the amendment. The committee includes Protestant and Catholic clergy, legislators from both parties, mayors, and citizens from one end of the state to the other. “We are so appreciative of this support, and believe it be reflective of the state” offers Freier. “We believe the people support the freedoms put in place by the framers of the constitution, and want them restored and preserved.”

Freier says the signature gathering will begin in early May, with much of the effort being initiated in the churches working with clergy and church members. He believes the internet and technology will greatly aid in the process. Freier is hopeful the bulk of the signatures will be gathered by July 1st.

To log on directly to download a petition or view related information and instructiowww.ndfa.org/ndreligiouosliberty.org To learn more about the initiative, including the official amendment language, log on to www.ndfa.org, or you may call the North Dakota Family Alliance at 701-364-0676, or email admin@ndfa.org. You may also contact the North Dakota Catholic Conference at 701-223-2519, 1-888-419-1237, or by emailing ndcatholic@csicable.net.

Religious Liberty Wins One

2010-04-28T16:54:00.004-05:00

Religious Liberty Wins One

Those battling to preserve a cross commemorating the service and sacrifices of veterans from World War I have won a victory. Members of the VFW placed the cross in a remote part of the Mojave desert in 1934 to honor their fallen friends and fellow soldiers. In recent years, efforts have been relentless in attempting to remove this symbol of honor. See the story posted today, relating the US Supreme Court ruling.

FoxNews.

The Supreme Court said a federal court went too far in ordering the removal of a memorial known as the 'Mojave Cross,' on an outcrop in the Mojave National Preserve, in Calif.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court's conservative majority signaled a greater willingness to allow religious symbols on public land Wednesday, a stance that could have important implications for future church-state disputes.

By a 5-4 vote, the court refused to order the removal of a congressionally endorsed war memorial cross from its longtime home atop a remote rocky outcropping in California's Mohave Desert.

The court directed a federal judge to look again at Congress' plan to transfer the patch of U.S. land beneath the 7-foot-tall cross made of metal pipe to private ownership.

Federal courts had rejected the land transfer as insufficient to eliminate constitutional concern about a religious symbol on public land — in this case in the Mojave National Preserve.

While the holding Wednesday was narrow, the language of the justices in the majority, and particularly the opinion of Anthony Kennedy, suggested a more permissive view of religious symbols on public land in future cases.

Federal courts currently are weighing at least two other cross cases, a 29-foot cross and war memorial on Mt. Soledad in San Diego and Utah's use of 12-foot-high crosses on roadside memorials honoring fallen highway patrol troopers.

"The Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion's role in society," wrote Kennedy, who usually is in the court's center on church-state issues.

Speaking of the Christian cross in particular, Kennedy said it is wrong to view it merely as a religious symbol. "Here one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten," he said.

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens agreed that soldiers who died in battle deserve a memorial to their service. But the government "cannot lawfully do so by continued endorsement of a starkly sectarian message," Stevens said.

The cross has stood on Sunrise Rock in the 1.6 million-acre Mojave preserve since 1934, put there by the Veterans of Foreign Wars as a memorial to World War I dead. It has been covered with plywood for the past several years following the court rulings.

Justice Samuel Alito, part of Wednesday's majority, noted the remoteness of the location. "At least until this litigation, it is likely that the cross was seen by more rattlesnakes than humans," Alito said, although he also pointed out that Easter services have long been held there.

The controversy began when a retired National Park Service employee, Frank Buono, filed a lawsuit complaining about the cross on public land. Federal courts sided with Buono and ordered the cross' removal.

In 2003, Congress stepped in and transferred the land where the cross stands to private hands to address the court rulings. But the courts said the land transfer was, in effect, an unacceptable end run around the constitutional problem.

In Wednesday's case, six justices wrote separate opinions and none spoke for a majority of the court.

But supporters of the cross memorials were pleased with Kennedy's language, especially because Alito and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would have gone further. Chief Justice John Roberts signed onto Kennedy's opinion.

"We know this is just the beginning. Until that box comes off that veterans' memorial, the veterans consider that a disgrace," said Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel at the conservative Liberty Legal Institute in Plano, Texas. He wrote a brief for several veterans' groups.

"We hope that some of the statements of Justice Kennedy go to the bigger issue, attacks on any veterans memorial that has any sort of religious imagery," Shackelford said.

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called the court's reasoning "bogus."

"It's alarming that the high court continues to undermine the separation of church and state. Nothing good can come from this trend," Lynn said. "The court majority seems to think the cross is not always a Christian symbol. I think all Americans know better than that."

Muslim and Jewish war veteran groups complained in court papers that they view the Mojave cross as a religious symbol that excludes them. The Jewish War Veterans called the cross "a powerful Christian symbol" and "not a symbol of any other religion."

Stevens largely agreed. He called the Mojave cross a "dramatically inadequate and inappropriate tribute." Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined his opinion, while Justice Stephen Breyer also dissented.

Religious Liberty under Siege

2010-04-18T20:08:00.005-05:00

Religious Liberty Under Siege.

It seems wherever we look our religious liberty is under attack. Yes, under attack. Yes, in this land we call America. It seems as though not a single day goes by that not yet another volley is hurled at our religious freedoms. While we might expect these attacks to come from those who despise our religious liberties, it is especially disconcerting when they come from those entrusted with protecting our freedoms--the judiciary. District Court Judge Crabb's ruling of the National Day of Prayer as unconstitutional--is a ruling of 'freedom from religion', not 'freedom of religion'. Not only is religious liberty under siege, our constitution is.

See the story of Judge Crabb's ruling below, and then see a commentary from Tony Perkins with FRC.

Judge: Natl Day Of Prayer Unconstitutional
April 15, 2010 - 4:49 PM | by: Mike Levine

The National Day of Prayer, honored in the United States for more than a half-century, is unconstitutional, a federal judge in Wisconsin has ruled.

In a 66-page opinion issued Thursday, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb said the holiday violates the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment, which creates a separation of church and state.

"I understand that many may disagree with that conclusion and some may even view it as a criticism of prayer or those who pray," Crabb said in her opinion. "That is unfortunate. A determination that the government may not endorse a religious message is not a determination that the message itself is harmful, unimportant or undeserving of dissemination."

The opinion comes in a case filed by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Wisconsin-based group of self-described "atheists" and "agnostics."

Crabb said her ruling is based on "relevant case law," and it does not prevent religious groups from organizing prayer services or prevent the President from discussing his views on prayer.

"The only issue decided in this case is that the federal government may not endorse prayer in a statute," Crabb said.

The Justice Department would not say whether it expects to appeal Crabb's ruling.

"We are reviewing the court's decision," a Justice Department spokesman said.

Within hours of the ruling, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee urged the Justice Department to "immediately" file an appeal.

"The decision undermines the values of religious freedom that America was founded upon," Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Tex., said in a statement. "What’s next? Declaring the federal holiday for Christmas unconstitutional?"

Crabb said the ruling would not have any effect until any appeals are exhausted.

She insisted her ruling was not a judgment on the value of prayer.

"No one can doubt the important role that prayer plays in the spiritual life of a believer," Crabb said in her opinion. "In the best of times, people may pray as a way of expressing joy and thanks; during times of grief, many find that prayer provides comfort. Others may pray to give praise, seek forgiveness, ask for guidance or find the truth. ... However, recognizing the importance of prayer to many people does not mean that the government may enact a statute in support of it, any more than the government may encourage citizens to fast during the month of Ramadan, attend a synagogue, purify themselves in a sweat lodge or practice rune magic."

The National Day of Prayer was first established by Congress in 1952, with a more specific date for the holiday set in 1988. It is now observed on the first Thursday in May.

Smith said he can "assure" Americans that "Congress will do everything in its power to protect the National Day of Prayer."

On the holiday last year, President Obama issued a statement saying Americans have always "come together in moments of great challenge and uncertainty to humble themselves in prayer."

"In 1775, as the Continental Congress began the task of forging a new Nation, colonists were asked to observe a day of quiet humiliation and prayer," the statement said. "Almost a century later, as the flames of the Civil War burned from north to south, President Lincoln and the Congress once again asked the American people to pray as the fate of their Nation hung in the balance."

So Help Us God
Tony Perkins, FRC

Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, [we] must fall with them (Jedediah Morse, 1799). Yesterday, 223 years to the day after patriots ratified an end the Revolutionary War, a judge in Wisconsin ruled to reintroduce tyranny in America--this time, from the bench. In a decision that is rocking our nation to its very core, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb determined that a national day of prayer--a tradition as old as the country itself--is unconstitutional. "...[R]ecognizing the importance of prayer to many people does not mean that the government may enact a statute in support of it..." With all due respect, the government may do exactly that under the very documents that established it. "[The] sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records," Alexander Hamilton insisted. "They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of divinity itself; and can never be erased by mortal power."

Had Judge Crabb consulted the Constitution she was sworn to uphold, she might notice that Americans enjoy religious freedom--not by virtue of the courts, but in spite of them. Furthermore, setting aside a day of corporate prayer is more than compatible with our nation's heritage; it is a responsibility assigned to every American by George Washington himself. "It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God... and humbly implore His protection and favor; and whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer" (Thanksgiving Proclamation, 1789).

Contrary to Judge Crabb's opinion, this ruling does not promote freedom, it crushes it. Americans pray voluntarily. And exercising that right together, as a willing nation, is exactly what the Founding Fathers intended. To imply otherwise is to suggest that the Constitution is unconstitutional! Religion cannot be banned in America because it was never imposed--not by the Founding Fathers, and certainly not by the National Day of Prayer.

Standing for Life

2010-04-14T20:37:00.003-05:00

Standing for Life

Standing for Life is a new feature on our website, a new service for you. Its purpose is to unite the efforts of North Dakotans who defend life from conception to natural death, and work to end abortion. The passion of those standing for life is more vibrant today, than ever. It is as persistent and persevering as it is vibrant. And to reward this persevering, vibrant passion with success--unity in the life community is a necessity.

There is no better testament to the vibrancy of the life cause than visiting with Lydia Benton. She is young, and her passion for the unborn is absolutely astounding. Lydia represents a generation that is becoming more and more prolife. She and so many like her give us great cause for hope.

Lydia has agreed to take on the development and enhancement of the "Standing for Life" program. Lydia will continue to add to the list of North Dakota prolife organizations. By checking in on these sites periodically, you can keep yourself updated on all that is happening. To view these sites, just click in the "Standing for Life" box.

Lydia will monitor events and news from our many life partners, and post articles of interest and informational value. We hope these articles will not only serve to inform us, but to unite us in purpose.

We are excited about offering this service. We are excited about promoting unity and the benefits we believe will result for the unborn. Please share your stories, your comments.

Lydia Benton works with the NDFA on a part time basis, focusing on the life issue, church and pastor relations, and friendraising. She can be reached at lbenton@ndfa.org.

Late term abortion ban passed in Nebraska

2010-04-14T16:03:00.004-05:00

Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

Nebraska has passed a late term abortion ban. Many in the prolife community will applaud the effort, some will be concerned about certain legal ramifications. Nebraska is to be commended for boldly speaking and acting for the unborn.

New Abortion Law in Nebraska on Fetal Pain Could Weaken Roe v. Wade Further

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
April 13, 2010

Lincoln, NE (LifeNews.com) -- The Nebraska legislature has signed off on a bill that Governor Dave Heineman will sign today that could head to the courts and ultimately weaken further the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that has resulted in 52 million abortions. The bill bans abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy based on the well-established concept of fetal pain.

By a vote of 44-5, the Nebraska unicameral legislature this morning gave final passage to the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act introduced by Speaker Mike Flood.

The legislation has been hailed by pro-life advocates across the country for its innovative approach and focusing the public's attention on unborn babies who have been medically documented as pain capable at 20 weeks gestation.

National Right to Life attorney Mary Spaulding Balch told LifeNews.com that the bill could make its way to the Supreme Court to alter national abortion law further and set a wide-ranging precedent.

"Although it will be a case of first impression, there are strong grounds to believe that five members of the current U.S. Supreme Court would give serious consideration to Nebraska’s assertion of a compelling state interest in preserving the life of an unborn child whom substantial medical evidence indicates is capable of feeling pain during an abortion," she said.

The ban on partial-birth abortions that made its way to the Supreme Court twice brought home the pro-life message that abortion kills an unborn child and was responsible for shifting public opinion on abortion squarely into the pro-life category.

It also paved the way for states to, for the first time since Roe, ban at least some abortions.

The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act could see the same group of five members of the Supreme Court uphold it as constitutional and allow more abortions to be prohibited.

Balch says the genius of the measure is the scientific fact that unborn children can feel pain.

"By 20 weeks after fertilization, unborn children have pain receptors throughout their body, and nerves link these to the brain," she told LifeNews.com. "These unborn children recoil from painful stimulation, which also dramatically increases their release of stress hormones. Doctors performing fetal surgery at and after 20 weeks now routinely use fetal anesthesia."

The pro-life attorney rebutted the response from pro-abortion groups that unborn children cannot feel pain until later in pregnancy when nerves reach the cerebral cortex.

“Since 2007, medical research, triggered by the identification of consciousness in children lacking a cortex from birth, has indicated that nerve connection to the cortex is not essential to experience pain. In fact, informed specialists have concluded that the subcortical plate, to which nerves from the pain receptors are linking at 20 weeks, fulfills that function," she explained.

A first of its kind in the United States, the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act prohibits abortion after 20 weeks gestation except when the mother "has a condition which so complicates her medical condition as to necessitate the abortion of her pregnancy to avert death or to avert serious risk of substantial or irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function or...it is necessary to preserve the life of an unborn child."

Ironically, Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban led to the first Supreme Court case, in 2000, that declared the ban unconstitutional.

The high court, after member changes, came back recently and overturned that decision in a new case concerning a national partial-birth abortion ban Congress passed.

When looking at abortion case law, NRLC says it hopes a new analysis can be established that would ultimately lead to overturning Roe.

Balch says the pro-life group wants the Supreme Court to redraw the line away from the viability standard about when abortions can be prohibited.

“What I would like to bring to the attention of the court is, there is another line,” Balch said. “This new knowledge is something the court has not looked at before and should look at.”

Fetal pain is not a new concept and the leading national expert on the topic confirms unborn children definitely have the capacity to feel intense pain during an abortion.

Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand of the University of Arkansas Medical Center has said he and other specialists in development of unborn children have shown that babies feel pain before birth as early as 20 weeks into the pregnancy.

Anand said many medical studies conclude that unborn babies are "very likely" to be "extremely sensitive to pain during the gestation of 20 to 30 weeks."

"This is based on multiple lines of evidence," Dr. Anand said. "Not just the lack of descending inhibitory fibers, but also the number of receptors in the skin, the level of expression of various chemicals, neurotransmitters, receptors, and things like that."

Anand explained that later-term abortion procedures, such as a partial-birth abortion "would be likely to cause severe pain."

Dr. Jean Wright, an anesthesiologist specializing in Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, has also confirmed the existence of fetal pain during Congressional testimony.

“[A]n unborn fetus after 20 weeks of gestation, has all the prerequisite anatomy, physiology, hormones, neurotransmitters, and electrical current to close the loop and create the conditions needed to perceive pain. In a fashion similar to explaining the electrical wiring to a new house, we would explain that the circuit is complete from skin to brain and back," she said.

And Dr. Richard T.F. Schmidt, past President of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, confirms, “It can be clearly demonstrated that fetuses seek to evade certain stimuli in a manner which an infant or an adult would be interpreted as a reaction to pain.”

An April 2004 Zogby poll shows that 77% of Americans back "laws requiring that women who are 20 weeks or more along in their pregnancy be given information about fetal pain before having an abortion."

Only 16 percent disagreed with such a proposal, according to the poll, commissioned by the National Right to Life Committee.

National Day of Prayer

2010-04-07T16:52:00.003-05:00

"The LORD is good, a refuge in times of trouble. He cares for those who trust in Him" Nahum 1:7

On May 6th the 59th annual National Day of Prayer will be observed around the country, and here in North Dakota. To learn more about the national event go to www.nationaldayofprayer.org . While at the NDP site you will be able to find sites where a National Day of Prayer event will be held, including those in North Dakota (also below).

Let us encourage you to take part in one of these planned events. If you live in an area where an event has not yet been planned, please consider doing so. While it may be difficult to complete the process (between now & May 6th) of officially linking to the national organization, you can organize an unofficial event. Let your prayers be lifted, and immediately after your event start the process of linking your next event to the 2011 National Day of Prayer site. Let us know and we will put you in contact with the North Dakota state NDP coordinators. Also if you are planning a prayer event this year, but not linked to the national event—let us know, and we will send out a notice via email and post on our website.

The power of prayer is awesome and undeniable. It is more powerful than any earthquake, flood, hurricane, or tsunami—or all those combined from the beginning of time. It is more powerful than any army, or navy, or all the nuclear warheads in the world. We serve a mighty God, a God of justice, the Almighty. And yet, He responds to the call of His people with love and compassion—reminiscent of the purity and beauty we would see in the face of a newborn baby. If we will only call on Him, He will heal our land. For He is good. On May 6th, and every day, let us fall on our knees and call on Him.

Minot

Start: 05/06/2010 at 07:00 PM
End: 05/06/2010 at 08:30 PM
Location: 1829 SW 8 St, Minot, ND 58701
First Presbyterian Church, 1000 3rd Street NE - Minot, ND
Contact: Zona Grubb at (701) 839-8022 or email

Harvey

Start: 05/06/2010 at 12:00 pm
End: 05/06/2010 at 13:00 pm
Location: 1007 Alder Avenue, Harvey, North Dakota 58341
Contact: Pastor Fred E. Westerhold at (701) 324-2548 or email

Bismarck

Start: 05/06/2010 at 12:00 pm
End: 05/06/2010 at 12:55 pm
Location: 2215 East Main Avenue St.4, Bismarck, ND 58501
Memorial Hall of the State Capital, Bismarck, ND
Contact: Kari Bitz at (701) 214-8402 or email

Valley City

Start: 05/06/2010 at 12:10 pm
End: 05/06/2010 at 12:30 pm
Location: 493 Central Ave N, Valley City, ND 58072
In the lobby of the Hi-Liner Activity Center
Contact: Lucas Aufenkamp at (701) 490-1358 or email

Fargo

Start: 05/06/2010 at 06:30 PM
End: 05/06/2010 at 08:00 PM
Location: 3803 13th Ave S, Fargo, ND 58103
Holiday Inn of Fargo, Harvest Room
Contact: kathy Spriggs at (701) 239-4621 or email

Today Has Changed My Life

2010-03-31T08:04:00.002-05:00

On Sunday, 5 post abortive women courageously shared their story with those gathered at a church in Jamestown. In the crowd was a woman, with 4 of her children, including her baby. Alison Grotberg reflected on hearing their powerful and heart breaking story. We are pleased, honored, and blessed to share Alison's reflections.

Today Has Changed My Life
by Alison Grotberg

Clean faces, cozy jammies, my kids were tired but excited to tell me about their day. I sat and listened, tired too; my heart pensive, thoughtful. What miraculous force animated their little bodies! I noticed the slope of their noses, the gesturing sweep of their hands, coy words said through hinted smiles. They are so alive: lungs breathing, hearts beating, stomachs digesting, eyelashes batting. Glorying in the moment, in their mother’s presence, happy to have my attention.

It’s hard to believe I am their mother, and they are here. And I am here with them. Oh, what that means! It is not an accident. It is not all because of me. There is a Hand that has brought us to this place and time, together.

I have thought much lately about the circumstances of their birth, each one of them. Musing, as I often do, over the number of them. When people meet me, they usually express surprise when they learn there are nine of them. Some say we are blessed. Others wonder out loud if my husband and I know what causes them. So many times I look at our children and wonder why God has entrusted them to us? I feel humbled by the task.

But today has changed my life. How can I tell you why? How can I describe the experience of sitting across the room from five women telling about the biggest, darkest secret in their lives? Each of them told the story. Long faces, burdened hearts, wills steeled by duty. And tears. Tears bearing out reality. Unselfconscious punctuations revealing the pain, still present.

What made it worse was that, right in front of them, I held my own baby who was alive. They were telling me of the death of theirs. They said they had done it knowing that it involved the ending of a life, the life of their own child. But they chose to do it anyway. They didn’t want to, but they were compelled to, each for their own reasons. And I stood there holding my baby who was alive while another woman, so much like me, told about the sounds of suction that had torn and dismembered her baby from her womb. I felt cruel. How could I flaunt life in the face of their death, the death of the child and the death of the woman's soul that had withered under the weight of what she had done?

But still, she was there and the other women with her. They chose to come to us. Their message was clear: “We can’t be silent anymore.” Their own pain required it of them. How can so much pain live in the human heart? These women were shattered. Their lives had been derailed; their secret a dark corner that confined them, defined them. But it wasn’t only pain driving them to tell us; it was also hope.

Their hope in themselves was gone. What replaced it was hope that comes through redemption. They said that truly knowing Jesus, receiving his forgiveness, and allowing his love to wash over them was what replaced their despair with healing. It gave them the will to break their silence and the unselfish love to share their pain with us, so that we would know. So that we would tell others. So that more babies wouldn’t die, and more mothers wouldn’t cry. These were their words. It was love that made them do it. To think that other women stood at the brink of living through the devastation they had lived -- no, to them that was unthinkable. They must speak.

There must be ears to hear. We must hear. Hear their cries. Be shocked by their pain. Feel our own shame for not wanting to know. Who wants to be responsible for that? Better not to know about it because everyone knows that to know means to bear responsibility. And it’s hard to face responsibility. It means we have to be accountable. It means we have to grapple with facts that are inconvenient and uncomfortable. It dismantles our hedonism. It makes us look at our own blindness. We may even open ourselves up to hearing our own secrets whisper to us.

But there are some things we need to know. What we need to know is that every one of these women were church women. They look exactly like the women sitting in church pews next to us in churches across America every Sunday. We need to know that every one of these women grew up in church. Some of them were even “pro-life.”

We also need to know that over 75 pastors from the area were invited to come to hear their stories, stories of women from our own state. Who wants to hear their story? Who wants to know about the children that were not allowed to live? Who wants to feel the pain? Two pastors came. Thirty others were there and these women resolutely opened up their pain and bravely shared it with us.

In spite of their ongoing healing, the women still feel their pain, (because they said when you kill your child you never forget). What is beautiful is that these women are no longer stuck there, in all that pain. They are forgiven! Free from the silent cancer eating at their emotions. Free from the self-destructive thoughts and actions that they once used to punish themselves for killing the innocent. These are their words.

Yet, in order for their story to push away the ugly shroud of guilt covering so many (they say one in every two to three women), their story needs to be heard. The story of their healing needs to be retold. Again and again.

Tonight my baby lays beside me. Her rounded cheeks and brows and little nostrils replay humanity’s form echoed in a new generation, the Image crying out to be seen, to be heard, to be protected. Today has changed my life. I will never be the same. They have not told their stories in vain.

Religious liberty

2010-03-23T14:48:00.006-05:00

Should a high school senior be prevented from playing an instrumental version of "Ave Maria" at her graduation ceremony? Were her First amendment rights violated? Were her religious liberties violated?

Alito: Refusal to Hear 'Ave Maria' Case Has 'Troubling' Implications
By Lawrence D. Jones|Christian Post Reporter

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito voiced his dissent Monday after his colleagues refused to hear an appeal from a former high school senior who was prevented from playing an instrumental version of “Ave Maria” at her graduation.

In a six-page opinion, Alito said the high court’s decision to deny Kathyrn Nurre’s petition for writ of certiorari will have important implications for the nearly ten million public school students in the Ninth Circuit as it will restrict what is purportedly personal student expression at public school graduation ceremonies.

“If the decision is applied to such performances, school administrators in some communities may choose to avoid ‘controversy’ by banishing all musical pieces with ‘religious connotations,’” Alito wrote, referring to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision last year.

In its ruling, the appeals court had sided with Nurre’s high school, saying that the free speech rights of the 2006 graduate and members of her school’s wind ensemble had not been violated when the school vetoed their decision to perform Franz Biebl’s “Ave Maria” because “it is reasonable for a school official to prohibit the performance of an obviously religious piece.”

At the prior year’s graduation ceremony, the student choir of Henry M. Jackson High School in Mill Creek, Wash., had performed “Up Above My Head," a vocal piece that included explicit references to "God," "heaven," and "angels,” and the school district claimed that this had resulted in complaints from graduation attendees and at least one angry letter to the editor of a local newspaper.

Fearful that the performance of Biebl’s “Ave Maria” would cause a similar reaction – even though the performance would not include the lyrics of the piece – school district officials vetoed the ensemble members’ choice, stating that “the title and meaning of the piece had religious connotations - and would be easily identified as such by attendees merely by the title alone.”

After noting this, Alito said the district's ban of the piece constitutes viewpoint discrimination because it was a response to the piece's perceived religious message.

"And our cases categorically reject the proposition that speech may be censored simply because some in the audience may find that speech distasteful," Alito argued.

Even the Court of Appeals, in a footnote, had acknowledged that the district’s decision would have been impermissible if it had constituted viewpoint discrimination, the justice pointed out. But the court concluded that "this is not a case involving viewpoint discrimination" because petitioner "concede[d] that she was not attempting to express any specific religious viewpoint" but instead "sought only to ‘play a pretty piece.’"

“This reasoning is questionable at best,” Alito proposed.

That said, the high court justice made clear his opinion that a decision "with such potentially broad and troubling implications" merits the review of the Supreme Court.

“[W]hen a public school purports to allow students to express themselves, it must respect the students’ free speech rights,” Alito wrote.

“School administrators may not behave like puppet masters who create the illusion that students are engaging in personal expression when in fact the school administration is pulling the strings,” he added.

In place of "Ave Maria," the members of the 2006 wind ensemble at Jackson High School performed the fourth movement of Gustav Holst’s "Second Suite in F for Military Band” during their graduation ceremony in June.

That same month, Nurre filed a First Amendment law suit against the school in a federal district court.

19 Reasons to Oppose the Current Health Care Bill

2010-03-18T18:11:00.009-05:00

President Obama and members of congress including our North Dakota delegation know what you and I know--the health care legislation under consideration funds abortion It also contains other provisions detrimental to the family. Take a look at 19 reasons pointing toward opposing the current bill, and ask the question, "how can our ND delegation vote for this?"

Eight Reasons Abortion Is in the Health Care Overhaul

1. The legislation specifically includes it. The President's bill to amend the Senate bill leaves several abortion provisions in place. In Section 1303 it allows tax credit subsidies for plans that include abortion and leaves the abortion surcharge in place. It maintains the proposal to create a multi-state plan that includes abortion in Sec. 1334. Even worse, it would increase the Senate bill funding from $7 billion to $11 billion for community health centers in Sec. 10503 without any abortion funding restrictions. (H.R. 3590, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.)

2. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has said it is. “And I would say that the Senate language, which was negotiated by Senators Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray, who are very strong defenders of women’s health services and choices for women, take a big step forward from where the House left it with the Stupak amendment, and I think do a good job making sure there are choices for women. . .That would be an accounting procedure, but everybody in the exchange would do the same thing, whether you’re male or female, whether you’re 75 or 25, you would all set aside a portion of your premium that would go into a fund.” (Sebelius: Everyone will pay into abortion-coverage fund.)

3. Senate Democrats refused to ban it. Instead of allowing for an up or down vote on a Senate amendment similar to the Stupak Amendment in the House which bans federal funding of abortion, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) “tabled” the amendment, effectively killing it. This was the only amendment dealt with in this way. (Vote No. 369 S.Amdt. 2962 to S.Amdt. 2786 to H.R. 3590)

4. House pro-life Democrats, who support a government takeover, say it is. “The Senate language is a significant departure from current law and is unacceptable.” (House Representative Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), February 23, 2010, CBS News)… “I think abortion’s wrong. The problem is that I’ve lived too long. When they say they can keep this money separate, I just don’t believe it.” (House Representative Marion Berry (D-Ark.), March 6, 2010, Arkansas News.)

5. House pro-abortion Democrats say it is. “The good news is that the Senate bill does allow [abortion coverage],” (Chairwoman of the House pro-abortion caucus, Dianne DeGette (D-Colo.),
March 5, 2010, Washington Post.

6. The abortion industry has sent out alerts in favor of it. The abortion giant Planned Parenthood sent out alerts on March 6, 2010: “President Obama's health care reform proposal would make a real difference for the women and families who rely on Planned Parenthood. . . . and [the bill] significantly increase access to reproductive health care.” (Planned Parenthood alert, March 6, 2010.)

7. Candidate Obama said it would be included, and the Obama administration includes it in its definition of reproductive health care. Presidential candidate Barack Obama stated he “believes that reproductive health care is basic health care.” (Rhealitycheck.org questionnaire, 2008.) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton followed up on this in 2009: “Reproductive health care includes access to abortion.” (Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, April 22, House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing)

8. House Democratic Majority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) has indicated he wants to fix the abortion coverage problem in the Senate bill. “House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Thursday that lawmakers could draft separate pieces of legislation with abortion language to earn the support of anti-abortion rights Democrats on healthcare reform legislation.” (March 4, 2010, The Hill)

Good Reasons to Oppose the Health Care Overhaul
1)
Abortion. The Senate bill would lead to government funded abortions. There are numerous reasons why that is true, including the bill text itself. Additionally just listen to pro-life Members like Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and organizations such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops both of whom support a government run health care system – but oppose the Senate bill strongly.

2)
Rationing. Call it “Comparative Effectiveness Research,” or a “Medicare Advisory board” or even call them “death panels” the Senate bill creates a Medicare Advisory Board required to make binding recommendations for cost savings within the Medicare program and requires this new board to do whatever is necessary to stop Medicare spending from growing to fast. The Board would also be able to redefine what a “qualified health plan” is and allow the Health and Human Services Secretary to force private health plans to adopt such rationing measures as well.

3)
The Federal Government Can’t Afford It. Amazingly the fallacy that The Senate health care bill now in front of the House would reduce the deficit continues. This was disproved by the Congressional Budget Office when it released a report that the Democrats were double counting and in fact the Senate bill, as the Examiner first reported, would create a $170 billion budget deficit.

4)
State Governments can’t afford it. The Senate health care bill would require states to expand Medicaid eligibility anywhere from 133 percent to 150 percent above the federal poverty limit. By 2011 the federal government would look to the states to pick up the costs for this expansion. The Congressional Budget Office estimates this mandate to the states would drain state coffers by $25 billion.

5)
People can’t afford it. The President campaigned on saving the average American family about $2,500 on health care premiums. The CBO has recently said that the Senate health care bill will actually raise the average family's health care premiums by $2,300. The costs to families do not stop there. If you have a flexible spending account or health savings account then over the counter drugs, like antihistamines, Tylenol, Pedialyte or even prenatal vitamins all will be subject to a tax increase of up to 40 percent if either bill passes. Also under the Senate bill payroll taxes would impose an additional 0.5 percent payroll tax on married couples with more than $250,000 in wages and individuals with more than $200,000 in wages. That’s a huge marriage penalty. Two people cohabitating could make $200k each before getting taxed. As a married couple you would get taxed at $250,000. If all that isn’t enough – also expect more taxes if you tan!

6)
The bill does little to cut costs but in actuality increases spending. Dean of the Harvard Medical School, Dr. Jeffrey Flier has stated, “There are no provisions to substantively control the growth of costs or raise the quality of care. So the overall effort will fail to qualify as reform. . . In discussions with dozens of health care leaders and economists, I find near unanimity of opinion that, whatever its shape, the final legislation that will emerge from Congress will markedly accelerate national health care spending rather than restrain it.”

7)
People don’t want it. Since December polls have consistently shown that the American people are opposed to the health care bill currently in Congress. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 42% favor the plan while 53% are opposed.

These figures include just 20% who Strongly Favor the plan and 41% who are Strongly Opposed. Additionally, a recent poll by Susan B. Anthony List in select Democrat’s districts shows that a majority of people believe that “abortion and abortion funding have no place in healthcare legislation.” The Senate bill represents an expansion of government funding of abortion.

8)
The process has made a mockery of the system. Reconciliation and the “Slaughter Rule,” are just some of the examples of how the Democrats are trying to twist any rule to get their legislation passed. From the very beginning President Obama and the rest of the Democratic leadership have behaved as if the rules meant for the rest of us were beneath them. From deals cut with the prescription drug industry to the drafting of at least 11 different versions of Obamacare just about everything has been done in backrooms, with occasional dog and pony shows such as hearings or summits that get broadcast on television but had little effect on the Democrats’ plans.

9)
The bills are likely unconstitutional. A number of Constitutional scholars, and the state of Virginia, are claiming that the bills violate the Constitution. Three such scholars; Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Family Research Council Senior Fellow Ken Blackwell and Ken Klukowski of the American Civil Rights Union pointed this out in the Wall Street Journal. The three scholars point out that first, the Constitution does not give Congress the power to require that Americans purchase health insurance. Secondly the Senate passed bill involves numerous deals Senator Reid cut to secure the votes of individual senators. This selective spending targeted at certain states runs afoul of the general welfare clause. Lastly, the legislation commands that states establish such things as benefit exchanges, which will require state legislation and regulations, rendering states little more than subdivisions of the federal government.

10)
The bill pays for itself by cutting Medicare. The Congressional Budget Office has found that the Senate bill would result in “reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care” of those in the Medicare Advantage plan. It is not just the attack on Medicare Advantage that has doctors worried. The dean of John Hopkins Medicine, Dr. Edward Miller, writes in the Wall Street Journal, that the expansion of Medicaid under the Senate bill would bankrupt states and overwhelm the current health care system.

11)
Our health care system deserves true reform, not further government control. Yes, the federal government already controls a lot of the current health care system – however few would argue that Medicare, Medicaid or the health care provided to veterans are exemplary and deserve to be expanded as is, let alone further burdened by new bureaucracy. Affordability, portability, accessibility, transparency and conscience protections for both patients and for health care professionals are what we should be focusing on – not how much more power can we give to the federal government

Thanks to the Family Research Council for furnishing these 21 valid points.

An open letter to Cong. Pomeroy

2010-03-16T09:27:00.002-05:00

An open letter to Congressman Pomeroy
On the Health care issue
Congressman Pomeroy, please listen to the people of North Dakota. As we and the people of this state have shared with you for months, this bill is not in the best interests of families across the state of North Dakota, your state. In general, we oppose this government take over of health care, and implore you to vote no, endorsing a fresh start. In specific, let us be very clear about the abortion language in the current bill. No matter how those in the pro abortion community attempt to spin this issue, the people of North Dakota know the truth.

Bill HR 3590 Will Greatly Expand Number of Abortions.

Majority Leader Harry Reid’s bill (HR 3590) that passed in the Senate is an elective abortion expansion bill, pure and simple. This 2,409 page, more than two trillion dollar bill, guts the current Hyde Amendment abortion funding ban by explicitly spending federal funds for private plans that cover elective abortion. It also appropriates $7 billion for community health centers and $6 billion for non-profit health care “co-ops”- without any abortion restrictions. Also, President Obama’s recent proposal would maintain abortion funding in the Senate bill, and even increase to $11 billion funds for community health centers with no abortion funding restrictions.

Before the Hyde Amendment was passed in 1976, Medicaid funded almost 300,000 abortions. The Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, has stated that because Medicaid does not fund abortion, almost 30 percent of Medicaid eligible women have their babies. In other words, even Planned Parenthood admits that if the Government were to fund abortion, 30 percent more Medicaid eligible women will have abortions.

This bill would upend over 30 years of settled government policy preventing federal funds from going to pay for elective abortions. If the Senate bill passes without the House adopted Stupak abortion funding ban, this bill will fund abortion and will vastly expand the number of abortions around the country. Rather than reducing the number of abortions, the majority in Congress will have overseen legislation to create the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade.

Regardless of whether one supports or opposes the legality of abortion, the majority of Americans oppose federal funding of elective abortion, which is exactly what the Senate bill will do.

We urge Congressman Pomeroy to reject the fake-abortion compromise. We need members of both parties to renew their energies to ensure every health bill includes the Stupak provision. This will prevent a massive new wave of federal funding for elective abortion.

Congressman Pomeroy, listen to the people of North Dakota, in specific oppose abortion, and in general, vote no on this government take over of our health care system.

Where is Congress? Where are the people?

2010-03-11T10:39:00.004-06:00

Where is Congress? Where are the people?

The headline reads, "D.C. begins licensing same-sex marriage". The Washington DC Council approved issuing same sex marriage licenses, and same sex marriage. Congress who is responsible for oversight in Washington DC has refused to become involved in enforcing federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which provides for marriage between one man and one woman.

The DC council, supported by a court ruling, did not allow this issue to go to a vote of the people. In every one of the 31 states where a vote has taken place, the people have voted in favor of marriage as between one man and one woman. Why should the people of DC be restricted from the privilege to cast their ballot on this issue.

Bishop Harry Jackson has fought valiantly to put this issue on the ballot. "We are fighting for justice and defending the rights of the people of the District of Columbia," Jackson said. "We have always anticipated that our quest for voting rights on the issue of marriage would end up in our higher appeals court, and today's ruling confirms that is where the issue is headed."

As we contemplate the serious nature of this issue, and the implications to future generations, we see the issue trivialized in the Washington Post--as an economic boon for DC. As you read the Family Research Council story below--consider the real and serious implications, and our need to promote and protect the institution of marriage between one man and one woman, whether that be from a wayward congress or activist judges.

For Richer or (More Likely) Poorer , Family Research Council

When same-sex weddings kicked off in D.C. yesterday, the city wasn't seeing anything but dollar signs. In an absurd article in today's Washington Post, reporters tried to argue that counterfeit marriage could be the economic salvation of the city's economy. In a region with 12% unemployment, local officials claim that redefining marriage "will create 700 jobs and contribute $52.2 million over three years to the local economy."

Not so fast, says FRC. The last census counted 3,678 same-sex partner homes in D.C. Assuming that number has stayed roughly the same, then the 150 who applied for marriage licenses yesterday would amount to a whopping four percent of the local homosexual population--hardly the stuff of economic recovery. For the Post's $52.2 million projection to come true, all 3,678 of those D.C. couples would have to get married and spend over $14,000 per wedding. (I don't know about you, but my wife and I spent a LOT less!) These "marriages" (which have yet to meet financial expectations in other states) may make a fast buck in the short term, but they will do nothing but drain the economy down the road. Consider the massive health care expenses incurred by taxpayers every year to cope with the diseases spread by homosexual behavior. According to the Kaiser Foundation, federal funding grew to more than $18 billion in 2004 to deal with the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Over half of all U.S. infections are in men having sex with men! That means taxpayers spend roughly $10 billion a year treating the diseases caused by a behavior celebrated in same-sex "marriage." So much for economic development!

Meanwhile, the bigger question is: where has Congress been on all of this? So far both the House and Senate, which are responsible for D.C. oversight, have refused to address the city's direct assault on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). By sitting on their hands, they're now complicit with a movement that could roll back the definition of marriage in states where voters have won the battle to enshrine marriage in their constitutions. We expected better from Congress.

Government Run Healthcare?

2010-03-09T12:51:00.003-06:00

Government Run Healthcare?

If the 2400 page healthcare bill being considered is not a federal government take over of the nation’s health care system, why do we need a 2400 page federal bill enrolled as law? If the current bill is not a federal take over of the healthcare system, why does the bill provide for over 100 federal agencies to implement, regulate, and control the nation’s healthcare system?

As of today, there is ‘good news’ and ‘not so good’ news. First, the good news is that there has been no vote on the bill. Even with the president stating that in regard to this issue, everything has been said, and everyone has said it, no vote has been taken in the house. The reason for no vote—they don’t have the votes.

The bad news is—that we should not underestimate their ability to get the votes. An immense amount of pressure is being put on the house members where the initial vote will be taken on the senate passed bill which includes the onerous provisions for abortion. The prolife house members should understand that there will be no guarantees for removal of the abortions provisions, after the passed bill leaves the house. These are backroom deals, and should be treated as such. The senate has not voted for the Stupak language, and in all likelihood, will not.

The two main reasons the NDFA is opposing the current healthcare bill are; 1) it does provide public funding for abortion and will dramatically increase the number of abortions, 2) an overall takeover of the healthcare system will result in higher costs and a poorer quality of service.

As much as proponents of the bill attempt to confuse the issue, the bill does provide for publicly funding abortion. Period. The only way to provide for protection is by incorporating the Stupak language. The bill even goes beyond these initial fears. Consider giving Kathleen Sebelius, with HHS, rule making authority utilizing this bill and the over 100 agencies to carry the rules out. Consider putting $11 billion into numerous programs, including ‘reproductive health care’. Can there be any question as to the involvement of Planned Parenthood and how much of those dollars will end up funding abortions in a PP facility?

To read a great article by Charmaine Yoest, titled ‘Abortion and the Health Bill’, go to Charmaine Yoest: Abortion and the Health Bill - WSJ.com. Charmaine is with Americans United for Life.

And then to the issue of ‘is this huge, comprehensive bill’ in the best interests of really addressing the problems of cost, quality, and access—we believe ‘not’. When a comprehensive system like the healthcare system has over time acquired characteristics which have negatively affected the cost and access, the remedy needs to involve a piece by piece analysis. Each component should be addressed, and the effect on the overall system reviewed before attempting to implement an overall fix.

For general information on the present state of our healthcare system and common sense ideas on improving it, please go to the Heritage Foundation at insideronline@heritage.org. To review a specific article addressing the issues of
cost, access and expectations, and accountability—go to www.insideronline.org/summary.cfm?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Insider%2BOnline&id=12180

For North Dakotans, the challenge is clear. Rep. Pomeroy must honor his pledge to the people of North Dakota—he must vote to oppose the senate bill which includes the public funding of abortion language. He cannot vote for the bill in hopes of it being fixed—down the road. There no guarantees of that happening. Additionally, a government, top down, mandated healthcare system is opposed by a huge majority of the people in North Dakota. He must respect the will of the people, and vote no on the senate bill. If this bill passes it may well be by one vote, we must be assured it will not be Rep. Pomeroy’s vote.

Congressman Earl Pomeroy Washington DC Office
Congressman Earl Pomeroy
1501 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-2611
Fax: (202) 226-0893

Waiting to marry

2010-03-08T16:16:00.003-06:00

In this day when the sanctity of marriage is debated, in many cases attacked, and in other instances considered an option, Mark Regnerus speaks to why some are waiting to get married?

Audio Friday Five: Marriage Analyst Mark Regnerus

by Nima Reza, managing editor

Mark Regnerus is associate professor of sociology and religious studies in the College of Liberal Arts at The University of Texas at Austin, where he lives with his wife, Deeann, and their three child

The interview

1. Why are people not getting married earlier these days?

A fair number of people seem to be entering marriage-like relationships, and wanted to be married. I would ask them, So, why aren’t you married? They have responded, with some bewilderment, how could I possibly propose such a crazy idea at this point in their young lives?

These are young adults typically between 19 and 21. I just came to the conclusion that these people are ready, mature enough. They seem to be in love. Why the wait?

Some of them told me, too, that getting married before they had finished college, or before they had had a few years under their belt outside of college, was morally questionable. They didn’t want to settle so early and wanted to see what else was out there.

I felt that I needed to push back a little on the norm that you just have to have all this experience, and first loves can’t last. Some of this came as I reflected on my own marriage. My wife and I met when we were 18. We married when we were 22. If we can make it starting that young, then other people can make it, too.

2. What can parents do to prepare their children for marriage?

That starts at a young age when you try to model a good marriage – not that couples never have fights, but instead, show children how to solve conflicts. You train kids for marriage by embodying good marital habits and practices – things you do to maintain a good marriage. It’s not some exceptional formula people need to figure out.

Some of it is just common sense. However, we don’t teach them about marriage very well. We don’t say, This is going to be an important part of your life some day.’

Also, a lot of parents punt on sex and instructing men and women on what sex is about, the emotions involved and the physical mechanics of it. You don’t get married, get in bed together and then just all of a sudden talk about sex.

3. What would you want our listeners and readers to know about your new book?

The book is intended to be a definitive map of the land of premarital sex among young adults. So, some Christians will say, Why did you write a book on premarital sex? Well, because it needed to be written and we need to know what’s going on.

So, one of the gifts I think I have is telling the story of what’s going on out there – whether it’s teenagers or young adults. I want to tell stories that are reliable and true and accurate. I’m not an ethicist. I’m not here to tell you how things always ought to be. There are plenty of people who are happy to step in and give color commentary. I’m going to give them the data and the statistics with which to work and to tell them what the terrain of life is for 18-to-23-year-olds. I’m hoping it will provoke thought. I’m hoping it will provoke a lot of conversations.

4. So, what is the terrain like out there for 18-to-23-year-olds?

It’s challenging for the conduct of relationships – chaste and unchaste. Relationships face an uphill battle. They tend not to last long. They tend to become sexual fairly promptly; within three to six months on average. Even evangelical relationships, four out of five, tend to involve some sort of sexual component.

The story may not be what we would want it to be, but sex is probably more quickly a component of relationships than it used to be – certainly in the social expectations. I talk a bit about why that is and about the nature of what has changed between men and women. I talk about the economics of relationships; about shifting sources of power within relationships and why women have trouble pulling off relationships the way they would like them to go.

The book is empathetic both to men and to women’s hopes, and yet, they’re misfiring. The relationships that are happening, on average, are not making people happy, fulfilled, more mature and moving them forward into adulthood. There’s a lot of pain, a lot of dashed hopes.

5. What can the church do to encourage a marriage culture in the congregation?

It used to be that sex and marriage were linked mentally in the church’s mind. We’ve almost decoupled them. We’ve said, ‘Don’t have sex! Stay tuned for the lesson on marriage. It’ll come in a few years.’

We’ve tacked on all sorts of expectations for people prior to marriage. Marriage is something that you do after you’ve had your fun, experienced your life, your education; that you can’t really do these things together. That’s an idea from hell in some ways. Where did this idea come from that marriage is something you settle down for after life is done? That resonates more with men than women in general, which is why women still marry younger than men. It sends a bad message about marriage. Do we really want to send that message?

I recognize churches – in a fairly divorcing culture – are reticent to give a strong message on marriage to 20-somethings. Sometimes, premarital counseling amounts to the pastor deciding in his head whether this marriage is going to last or not. That’s a problem. So, I think in a culture that doesn’t expect a lot out of people, and yet expects a ton from marriage in terms of satisfaction, we’ve got things reversed. We should expect a lot of people to keep a marriage covenant and lower our expectations a little bit about the pleasure and satisfactions that marriage is supposed to give us.

(NOTE: Referral to Web sites not developed by NDFA is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.)

The Mount Vernon Statement

2010-03-01T14:14:00.008-06:00

America's principles been undermined and redefined. Truth has been replaced with moral relativism. The founding documents based on God's laws providing for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, seem to have lost their place of prominence. Is it time to seek the truth put in place by our founding fathers?

The Mount Vernon Statement
Constitutional Conservatism
A Statement for the 21st Century

We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding. Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law.

They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government.

These principles define us as a country and inspire us as a people. They are responsible for a prosperous, just nation unlike any other in the world. They are our highest achievements, serving not only as powerful beacons to all who strive for freedom and seek self-government, but as warnings to tyrants and despots everywhere.

Each one of these founding ideas is presently under sustained attack. In recent decades, America’s principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics.

The selfevident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist.

The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.

Some insist that America must change, cast off the old and put on the new. But where would this lead -- forward or backward, up or down? Isn’t this idea of change an empty promise or even a dangerous deception?

The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles. At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man’s self-interest but also his capacity for virtue.

The conservatism of the Constitution limits government’s powers but ensures that government performs its proper job effectively. It refines popular will through the filter of representation. It provides checks and balances through the several branches of government and a federal republic.

A conservatism unites all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles. It reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government, and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to America’s safety and leadership role in the world.

A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent andmeaningful policy agenda.
•It applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal.
•It honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life.
•It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions.
•It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.
•It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith.
If we are to succeed in the critical political and policy battles ahead, we must be certain of our purpose.

We must begin by retaking and resolutely defending the high ground of America’s founding principles.
February 17, 2010

NCAA Pulls the Plug on Focus Ad After Protest

2010-02-26T09:55:00.007-06:00

NCAA Pulls the Plug on Focus Ad After Protest

by Nima Reza, managing editor

Organization caters to homosexual activists over benign ad.

The NCAA took a Focus on the Family ad off of its Web site after homosexual activists complained.

The print ad shows a father holding his young son. It's titled:

Celebrate Family. Celebrate Life.

And the picture is captioned:

All I want for my son is for him to grow up knowing how to do the right thing.

The activists claimed Focus was too controversial for being pro-life, and in favor of one-man, one-woman marriage. They said that runs counter to the NCAA's policies.

Gary Schneeberger, vice president of ministry communications at Focus on the Family, said he was "befuddled" by the NCAA's decision.

"Have we really become a society where it's considered distasteful and controversial for a dad to hope the best for his son?" he said. "If so, we have a lot of soul-searching to do as a nation."

Steve Maegdlin, CEO of the CSK Strategic Marketing Group which produced the print ad, said there's no reason for it to be pulled.

"There's no hidden message or hidden agenda in here," he said.

Calls to the NCAA were not returned.

The ad was part of a CBS Super Bowl package. The network ran the much-talked about TV commercial by Focus on the Family featuring Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow and his mother.

"We said during the weeks of controversy before our Super Bowl commercial with the Tebows aired that – despite the charges of critics who hadn't even seen it – the spot was not political or divisive or hateful," Schneeberger added. "And, it wasn't. The print ad now being protested is even more non-threatening – if that's possible. It simply says, 'Focus on the Family is here to help you raise your kids, thrive in your marriages and tackle the challenge life throws your way.'"

FOR MORE INFORMATION
Call the NCAA to express your disappointment over the ad's removal.

NCAA Comment Line 317-917-6762.

Health Care Debate

2010-02-23T10:49:00.003-06:00

As we anticipate the proposed healthcare debate with the president and members of congress, we call on our ND congressional delegation to pursue a path of common sense reflective of the families in North Dakota.

As we have been advocating for months, the healthcare reform debate needs to address the real issues: the issues of portability, affordability, tax deductibility for individuals just as business, tort reform measures, allowing insurance plans to be sold across state lines, a health savings account program, and address waste in Medicaid and Medicare. While our primary concern with the current bill is: the publically funding of abortion, right of conscience protections, end of life counseling provisions, and rationing of care to our older citizens; we continue to have grave concerns with other parts of the bill which are contrary to the best interests of the family, and believe the real issues of healthcare reform must be addressed. And continue to call for the slate to be cleared, and start over.

NDFA welcomes any good-faith effort to start over on health care reform, but it appears the most recent version continues to be a government run mandate and has the effect of increasing taxes today, and for years to come for our children. It seems it contains many of the provisions of the senate bill passed on Christmas Eve. Instead of limiting the perks to Nebraska, Louisiana, and Florida—it provides them for all states, increasing the cost to a trillion dollars with the delayed implementation. If you factor out the delayed implementation, the true cost for the next decade is a at 2 Trillion dollars.

The proposed plan provides for the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v Wade, with the greatest rewards going to Planned Parenthood. Instead of adopting the Stupak Amendment, the proposal prevents states from opting out of the publically funded abortion. It asks for $11 billion for ‘community health centers’ which may easily be directed toward Planned Parenthood facilities. By defining abortion as ‘preventative health services’, private insurers would be forced to cover them.

The February 23rd headlines at LifeNews validate how little has changed over the last few months:

LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report
Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Current Headlines

• Obama Unveils Health Care Plan, Violates Pledge by Keeping Abortion Funding
• Analysis: Obama Plan Increases Abortion Funding Via Community Health Centers
• White House Joins Pelosi, Reid in Supporting Reconciliation on Health Care Bill
• Pro-Life Groups Blast Obama for Funding Abortions in His Health Care Plan
• Health Care Rationing for Seniors is Another Problem in New Obama Plan

As we have shared over the past months, there is a life cycle of all legislation. Under optimum circumstances, a healthy debate will result in compromise producing legislation reflecting the true intent and purpose of the original need. Unfortunately this legislation has strayed away from the original purpose. It is at this juncture, the slate needs to be cleared, hence a fresh start.

Some believe a flawed piece of legislation can be compromised into acceptable law. That belief is flawed. Venturing down this path will produce flawed legislation. Some would say when you have reached a point that all ‘hate the legislation’, a proper compromise has been reached. “Bunk”. Some would say ‘when nobody got what they want’; a proper level of compromise has been reached. “Bunk”. That is precisely the time to wipe the slate clean, start over addressing the real issues.

We continue to ask these questions:

Will the current bill being debated enable public, tax payer funder abortion?

Will the number of abortions increase with the passage of this bill?

Will this current bill being debated cut or lower healthcare costs for the family?

Will this bill cut Medicare benefits?
.
Will the passage of this bill increase the tax burden on the family, both present and future generations?

Can we be assured the current bill guarantee on the issues of right of conscience, end of life counseling, and potential rationing?

Will the provision for over 100 new bureaucratic government agencies streamline the delivery of quality care for your family?

Will this current bill provide for better healthcare for the family?

Let us hope the ND congressional delegation will see the merit of responding to the best interests of the family.

2010-02-18T09:54:00.006-06:00

A Plan to Save America

As we view the world around us and have deep concerns about the culture and the country we leave for our children and grandchildren, many are seeking a plan to address the important issues impacting the family. It is impossible to impact the issues without involving those who make the public policy, those in elective offices.

So we share a list of 10 statements, known as ‘A Plan to Save America’. Select from the list those which are of most importance to you, and present those in the form of a question to those currently in elective office, as well as those candidates aspiring to office.

Use this exchange of your questions and the responses to hold existing office holders accountable, and as a means of determining who is deserving of your vote on election day.

A Plan to Save America

The Declaration of Independence was both a political and a spiritual document. To the principles enunciated in that Declaration, the leaders pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor as they called upon the Almighty to assist them in their quest to break the bonds of tyranny and give birth to a new nation of freedom, justice and hope. America is in need of such purpose and commitment once again.

Therefore we call on our leaders to:

1. Acknowledge the centrality of faith in America

We call for the right to publicly acknowledge God and the protection of our religious freedom.
2. Protect human life

We call for the protection of human life from conception to natural death.
3. Save Traditional Marriage
We call for protection of marriage to remain the union of a man and a woman..

4. Curtail judicial activism

We call for judges to be constrained by the Constitution and laws of the land.
5. Protect the right of Parents to direct the education of their children.

6. Limit the size of government

We call for honesty in our government, limited to constitutional functions.
7. Protect our economic freedom

We call for a free-market economy, because it rewards hard work, creates jobs and maximizes human potential.

8. Practice fiscal responsibility, lower taxes and reduce spending

We call for lower taxes and eliminating the deficit by reducing spending..
9. Focus on national security

We call for a foreign and military policy that protects Americans, maintains our national sovereignty and secures our borders.
10. Secure energy independence

We call for exploration, development, production and use of all energy resources.

If you have comments, please contact us at admin@ndfa.org

Good News! Religious Liberty, Unity, and Family Friendly TV

2010-02-18T09:47:00.003-06:00

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Does that sound familiar? Well it should—First Amendment, Bill of Rights, US Constitution. The early Americans believed strongly in the importance of protecting our religious freedoms, and reflected their beliefs in placing these protections in the 1st Amendment. Likewise in 1889, the framers of the ND Constitution included strong protections for our religious liberties.

Today these expressions of religious liberties are under attack daily, with most of the attacks coming as litigation through the courts. While the language in North Dakota’s constitution may have been adequate in 1889, there may be need to ascertain if additional constitutional language is necessary to reflect and restore the original intent. The Good News---those in Missouri are acting on the issue of protecting our religious liberties (below).

In the Declaration of Independence, we find “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable right, that among these is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. For these truths to be accomplished there is a need for unity. For in unity there is strength, and with strength there is success. This is Good News. (read below about the Mount Vernon Statement and Unity)

And then lastly read a story about two corporations understanding the need for ‘family friendly TV’. One of the most common complaints we hear is “there isn’t anything decent on television for us or our kids to watch”. It appears P&G & Wal-Mart are trying to address the issue. As reported in the FOTF article only 23% of parents are satisfied with present programming, and are asking for more appropriate options. In reality, why should we allow the media and its programming to influence our children and the culture, should not we influence the media? And the only way to do that is to restrict what we tune into on our television sets, or if necessary—just turning it off. The Good News—someone is responding to providing appropriate programming. (see the story below)

Missouri Lawmakers Back Religious Liberty Legislation
by Nima Reza, managing editor

Committee unanimously approves legislative measure.

A Missouri Senate committee has endorsed legislation that protects religious freedoms.

The Committee on General Laws approved the resolution 5-0 last week. It was sponsored by Sen. Delbert Scott.

Joe Ortwerth, executive director of the Missouri Family Policy Council, said his group promoted Senate Joint Resolution 31, because groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, for example, are trying to convince public school officials that freedom of religious expression cannot be permitted in public settings.

"Our goal here in Missouri," he said, "is to clarify – in our constitution – the extent of the religious liberties that are enjoyed by our citizens and guaranteed by our bill of rights."

If the proposal passes this session, it would go on the August or November ballot.

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst with Focus on the Family Action, said local school boards rarely have a complete understanding of the First Amendment.

"If they can read it in their own state constitution," he said, "it gives students and citizens of that state that much more chance of being protected."

Mount Vernon Statement: Unifying for the Challenges Ahead

This Wednesday, I will join more than 100 conservative leaders at a ceremony in Alexandria, Virginia to celebrate the release of the Mount Vernon Statement -- a document in which the conservative movement will reaffirm its commitment to Constitutional Conservatism and the principles of the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This will be a significant moment as social, fiscal, and national security conservatives come together to declare the importance of working together to defend our nation's founding principles.

The three-legged conservative coalition must remain unified behind these core beliefs to prepare for the challenges ahead and successfully confront a hostile Congress and Obama Administration. Signers include a broad number of prominent conservatives including former Attorney General Ed Meese, Heritage Foundation President Edwin Feulner, Media Research Center President Brent Bozell, Federalist Society co-founder David McIntosh, and Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist among others. Watch your inboxes for an email action alert on Wednesday to read a copy of the Mount Vernon Statement and add your name as a signatory.

Procter & Gamble and Wal-Mart Sponsor Family-Friendly TV
by Nima Reza, managing editor

Two advertising heavyweights respond to research showing desire for wholesome programming.

Procter & Gamble (P&G) and Wal-Mart are collaborating to produce TV shows for the whole family.

The initial production is Secrets of the Mountain, a two-hour TV movie airing on NBC April 16. It’s about the struggles of a single mother and her three children who embark on an adventure.

Jeannie Tharrington, spokeswoman with Procter and Gamble Productions, called the program uplifting.

“At the end of the movie,” she said, “I think you take away this lesson that when times get tough, families run toward each other -- and not away from each other.”

She added that only 23 percent of parents P&G surveyed were satisfied with the amount of family-friendly options on TV.

“We saw that as a huge opportunity to go out and just be leaders in this space and create it ourselves,” she said.

Tom Minnery, senior vice president of Public Policy at Focus on the Family, said there’s a dire need for such programming.

“If people have not watched primetime network programming lately, they no idea have low it has sunk,” he said, “and how welcome this news is from Procter & Gamble and Wal-Mart.”