In his famous letter from a Birmingham jail Martin Luther King Jr. observed, “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” Senator Kimberly Lightford (D-Westchester area) has introduced a very troubling anti-family, big government resolution.

Senator Lightford’s resolution calls for the support of a radical United Nations treaty that would usurp parental authority to oversee their own children. If this treaty is officially ratified by the United States Senate, it would become legally enforcible throughout our country. The Lightford resolution, if passed by the Illinois General Assembly, will put Illinois on record in support of the horrible United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

The adoption of this evil globalist resolution will force the government into the sacred parent-child relationship. CRC supporters want the government to have a say in what church your children attend, how much time they spend on chores, what websites and books they read, whether they should be homeschooled, and who they choose for friends.

According to the Homeschool Legal Defense Association Senator Lightford’s legislation will “enable state agencies and judges to begin implementing aspects of the CRC in the state of Illinois, even if the U.S. Senate never ratifies it.”

To preserve freedom, families in Illinois must demand the rejection of the Lightford resolution, and instead ask their representative to endorse the important Parental Rights Amendment, which is being introduced in state legislatures all over America. (Watch for more information on this in the near future!)

Remember, Christian families must diligently and vigorously defend freedom. Dr. King’s observation above reminds us of the fact that our godless government is not just going to give it to us.

Take ACTION: Send an email or a fax to your representative. Urge them to reject the Lightford resolution — SR 92 –.

You can also call the Capitol switchboard at 217-782-2000.

It is vital that you voice your concerns to your your elected officials in Springfield regarding SR 92.

State Representative Lou Lang (D-Skokie) is once again pushing a bill to legalize so-called “medical” marijuana. As you may know, the Marijuana Policy Project is supported by George Soros, the radically liberal billionaire from Eastern Europe. They are heavily invested in trying to get policies like this passed into law.

Lang’s 68 page proposal, HB 30, passed out of the Human Services Committee last week along party lines by a vote of 6 to 5. It now moves to the full house.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send your state representative an email or a fax to tell him/her that you do not want marijuana sold in your neighborhood for any purpose.

The issue of legitimizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes will encourage and increase destructive behavior in users. Marijuana is the most widely used illicit drug in the United States. Research has found that adolescent and teen drug use rises as the perception of harm diminishes. If marijuana is classified as medicine, marijuana use among youth would increase.

Our friends at ILCAAAP recently published the following points of concern regarding HB 30:

OPPOSE HB 30 – Legalizes Medical Use of Marijuana

• The U. S. Food and Drug Administration has not determined that marijuana is safe and effective. Legislators are not doctors and should not determine what is medicine.
• HB 30 defines an “adequate supply” of marijuana as 2.5 ounces of useable cannabis during a 14 day period. This is equivalent to 183 joints every 14 days or 13 joints a day.
• HB 30 permits a patient to apply for a waiver, based on the patient’s medical history and the physician’s professional judgment,to receive more than 2.5 ounces in 14 days.
• A person does not have to be terminally ill to qualify for the medical use of marijuana. HB 30 allows the Department to add other debilitating medical conditions or treatments.
• HB 30 defines “visiting qualifying patient” as someone with a debilitating medical condition who possesses a valid registry identification, or its equivalent, issued pursuant to the laws of another state, district, territory, commonwealth, insular possession of the United States or country recognized by the United States that allows that person to use cannabis for medical purposes in the jurisdiction of issuance. Who will verify that these cards are not forged? Fake IDs could be made and dispensed nationwide or globally.
• HB 30 protects a verifying physician from arrest and penalties solely for providing a second opinion concerning a patient’s disease, condition, or symptoms. If a patient’s regular physician does not want to provide written certification for marijuana, could the patient then get a second opinion and receive the written certification from this physician? In some states, a small amount of physicians provide most of the written certificates.
• HB 30 does not permit people to possess cannabis on the grounds of a preschool, primary, or secondary school. Could people possess cannabis on college campuses or in dorm rooms?
• If the Department does not issue a valid registry identification card in response to a valid application or renewal within 30 days, the registry ID card shall be deemed granted and a copy of the application, including the valid written certification or renewal shall be deemed a valid registry ID card. p. 48-49.
• HB 30 does not require a photo on the ID, and homeless people can send in an application without listing an address. Lost cards must be reissued within 10 days. How will authorities determine if someone is using a stolen or lost ID? Who will be checking the random ID numbers to notify authorities that a lost or stolen card is being used to purchase marijuana?
• HB 30 exempts patients, caregivers, and medical marijuana organizations and employees from disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau for the medical use of marijuana according the act. How many counselors, lawyers, nurses, beauticians, etc. will use medical marijuana, and how will this impact their clients?
• HB 30 allows patients younger than 18 years of age to qualify for a registry identification card if the patient’s physician explains the risks and the custodial parent or legal guardian consents in writing. Not all parents are responsible, and some parents abuse drugs. Recent studies show the harm from children using marijuana.
• HB 30 requires the patient’s certifying physician to notify the Department in writing if the patient has ceased to suffer or the physician no longer believes the patient is benefiting from the medical use of cannabis, and the card shall be null and void; The patient then has 15 days to destroy any remaining cannabis and related paraphernalia. What guidelines will be followed to make sure the cannabis is not sold or stolen?
• HB 30 preempts Home Rule. Cities and home-rule communities may not regulate registered nonprofit medical cannabis organizations and would have to allow them to operate.
• HB 30 stipulates that a nonprofit medical cannabis organization may not be located within 1,000 feet of the property line of a pre-existing public or private preschool or elementary or secondary school. It could locate next to a church, college, library, YMCA, park, etc.
• HB 30 requires the Department to “give reasonable notice” before doing a random inspection or cannabis testing at a medical cannabis organization.
• HB 30 requires the Department to promulgate rules no later than 60 days after the effective date of the legislation. This rushes the process and mistakes could be made.
• HB 30 requires the Department to issue reasonable rules concerning the medical use of cannabis at a nursing care institution, hospice, assisted living center, assisted living facility, assisted living home, residential care institution, or adult day health care facility. Who will oversee this so there is no abuse of patients or misuse of cannabis by staff or residents?
• HB 30 states “no dispensary is authorized to possess more plants than are reasonably necessary to satisfy the adequate supply of the patients who have designated that dispensary as his/her provider”. (p. 44) Neighborhood dispensaries could contain thousands of plants.
• HB 30 changes the DUI law and allows those possessing a valid registry card to operate a motor vehicle 4 hours after consuming medical cannabis. Section 11-501.9 According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, marijuana has serious harmful effects on the skills required to drive safely: alertness, ability to concentrate, coordination, and the ability to react quickly. Theseeffects can last up to 24 hours after smoking marijuana. Marijuana use can make it difficult to judge distances and react to signals and sounds on the road. Many people who are under the influence believe they can drive safely. This is a public safety issue.

A new book analyzing data about longevity in the United State over the past 80 years found some sobering news about divorce. In an era of easy “no fault” divorce where marriage is often viewed as disposable, the authors found that the early death of a parent had no measurable effect on children’s life spans or mortality risk, but the long-term health effects of broken families were often devastating.

Parental divorce during childhood emerged as the single strongest predictor of early death in adulthood. The grown children of divorced parents died almost five years earlier, on average, than children from intact families. The causes of death ranged from accidents and violence to cancer, heart attack and stroke. Parental break-ups remain, the authors say, among the most traumatic and harmful events for children.

IFI has long maintained that society overlooks the traumatic impact of divorce and that “adult rights” often trump “children’s needs.”

Click HERE to read more about the longevity study from the Wall Street Journal.

Living in the “information age” and in a time of unprecedented technical achievement, it is difficult to explain the disconnect of many Americans between their actions and the consequence of those actions. Those of us who turn to the Bible for wisdom take it from God that “whatever a man sows, that shall he also reap.” In scientific terms we understand that, “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” Much of the pain people experience is simply due to bad choices they have made.

Whether we are discussing the disruption of life that drug use brings, the anger and pain of children who are the victims of a divorce, or the conflicts like that in Madison, Wisconsin, all are the result of people making wrong-headed decisions and later suffering the consequences. Yet rather than changing one’s direction or making wiser choices, many become whiners or, worse yet, demand that someone else bear the burden for their bad decisions.

One painful part of child rearing is witnessing the little one’s learning how to walk and run. In short order their shins become covered by bruises as they stretch the limits of their balance and strength. We understand that such pains are part of growing and learning.

However, many people appear to equate the amoral bruising of the toddler’s shins after a fall to the suffering which is consequent to choices that traditionally have been considered immoral. They see the pain that fills peoples’ lives following certain activities as just a part of life. One must merely get up, brush off the dust and keep going. In other words, they see no moral implications in the suffering which follows premarital sex, adultery, drug use, abortions or homosexual conduct. In fact, they argue that the discomfort they experience following such behavior is due exclusively to the preaching and moralizing of Christians. They claim that if Christians would be silent regarding others’ conduct they would experience no guilt and be very comfortable and happy in the lifestyle choices they have made.

However, this ignores the fact that all of us make decisions on a regular basis of which others disapprove yet we experience no moral qualms. There are multitudes who believe that gun ownership and hunting are inherently immoral, even wicked. In fact, the general public opinion would probably lean quite decidedly against hunting at this time, yet I find no guilt in participating in either over the years. One could make the case that political correctness is so powerful in America that many traditional activities have become quite unpopular, but those activities continue to be practiced by many without moral qualms. It is clear that there is an innate sense of guilt attached to some behaviors while others, regardless of the attempts by some to render them “immoral,” remain acceptable. It is not our moralizing that produces the guilt but the inherent immorality of the conduct.

Witnessing a homosexual parade or trying to help the children suffering the agony of their parent’s divorce educates one quickly if our eyes and hearts are open. These actions are and will remain immoral and unsupportable regardless of their “acceptance” by society because they are inherently contradictory to Scripture, nature, and the best interests of people, especially children.

God knew exactly what He was doing when He created us “male and female,” and introduced marriage as the only safe and appropriate venue for sexual activities.

The increasing demands for “therapy,” alcohol and drug abuse, and the tragic uptick in cases of depression, suicide and other anti-social behaviors merely reflect our penchant to self-destructive conduct. We are reaping what we have sown, and no scapegoats can alleviate the pain.

Maybe humbling ourselves before our loving Creator would be a good first step to real joy.

The federal government’s latest survey on sexual behavior in the United States contains evidence that more teenagers are choosing abstinence over sex. In the 15 to 24 age group, 29 percent of females and 27 percent of males report never having sexual contact with another person-higher percentages in both cases than in 2002.

“The public’s general perception is that when it comes to young people and sex, the news is bad and likely to get worse,” said Bill Albert, chief program officer of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. The new report, however, provides at least indirect evidence that “many, many young people have been very receptive to the message of delaying sexual activity.”

The study also found that across the entire age-span surveyed — age 15 through age 44 — thirteen percent of women reported some same-sex sexual behavior in their lifetime, compared to 5 percent of men.

The study’s findings came from interviews with 13,495 men and women in the latest round of the National Survey of Family Growth, conducted from 2006 to 2008. The survey has been conducted 7 times since 1973.

Read more:

Sex survey sheds some light (Boston Globe)

The federal government’s latest survey on sexual behavior in the United States contains evidence that more teenagers are choosing abstinence over sex. In the 15 to 24 age group, 29 percent of females and 27 percent of males report never having sexual contact with another person-higher percentages in both cases than in 2002.

“The public’s general perception is that when it comes to young people and sex, the news is bad and likely to get worse,” said Bill Albert, chief program officer of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. The new report, however, provides at least indirect evidence that “many, many young people have been very receptive to the message of delaying sexual activity.”

The study also found that across the entire age-span surveyed — age 15 through age 44 — thirteen percent of women reported some same-sex sexual behavior in their lifetime, compared to 5 percent of men.

The study’s findings came from interviews with 13,495 men and women in the latest round of the National Survey of Family Growth, conducted from 2006 to 2008. The survey has been conducted 7 times since 1973.

Read more:

Sex survey sheds some light (Boston Globe)

Divisive & Unpopular “Civil Unions” Bill Does Not Promote the General Welfare of the Citizenry

In the waning days of the previous General Assembly, during a lame-duck session and by razor thin margins, Illinois lawmakers passed a bill that radically redefines marriage and family.

“Marriage was not created by man or governments,” said IFI Executive Director David E. Smith. “It is an institution created by God. Governments merely recognize its nature and importance.”

Marriage is the institution that societies worldwide have recognized and encouraged because this unique relationship between a man and a woman provides particular benefits to society, chief among them, the procreation and nurturing of the next generation.

IFI’s Director of School Advocacy Laurie Higgins says “If marriages were centrally or solely about affirming love between individuals, the government would have no reason to be involved in the business of sanctioning marriage. Government sanctions the type of relationship into which children may be born and raised because the government recognizes that that institution which best serves the needs and rights of children is the institution that best serves as the needs of a healthy society.”

“It is either ignorant or dishonest to suggest that the inclusion of sexual complementarity in the list of central defining criteria for government-sanctioned marriage denies homosexuals a civil right,” says Higgins.

Civil unions are merely a stepping stone to legalized same-sex marriage. Of the central defining criteria for marriage — number of partners, blood kinship, minimum age and sexual complementarity — sexual complementarity is the most enduring. Therefore, eliminating it constitutes the most radical redefinition of marriage imaginable.

“Gov. Quinn should reject this anti-family bill and reject the efforts of the homosexual lobby to impose this highly contentious and controversial policy on the people of Illinois. Homosexual behavior is not equivalent to race and gender diversity is essential to marriage. It is intellectually dishonest to argue otherwise” said Smith.

Higgins states that “Once marriage is severed from procreative potential and gender, it becomes meaningless as a public institution. “

Philosophical conservatives and all people who are committed to rational argument need to openly, courageously, and persistently challenge the flawed analogy that suggests that homosexuality is equivalent to race. Likewise, the legislative push for special rights legislation for special interest groups based on sexual inclinations and volitional sexual behavior must be challenged.

by Patrick B. Craine –LifeSiteNews.com

Couples who reserve sex for marriage enjoy greater stability and communication in their relationships, say researchers at Brigham Young University.

A new study from the Mormon college found that those couples who waited until marriage rated their relationship stability 22 percent higher than those who started having sex in the early part of their relationship. The relationship satisfaction was 20 percent higher for those who waited, the sexual quality of the relationship was 5 percent better, and communication was 12 percent better.

The study, published in the American Psychological Association’s Journal of Family Psychology, involved 2,035 married individuals who participated in a popular online marital assessment called “RELATE.” From the assessment’s database, researchers selected a sample designed to match the demographics of the married American population. The extensive questionnaire included the question “When did you become sexual in this relationship?”

Couples that became sexually involved later in their relationship – but prior to marriage – reported benefits that were about half as strong as those who waited for marriage.

“Most research on the topic is focused on individuals’ experiences and not the timing within a relationship,” said lead study author Dean Busby, a professor at Brigham Young University’s School of Family Life.

The study was co-authored by BYU professors Jason Carroll and Brian Willoughby.

“There’s more to a relationship than sex, but we did find that those who waited longer were happier with the sexual aspect of their relationship,” Busby added. “I think it’s because they’ve learned to talk and have the skills to work with issues that come up.”

Sociologist Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin, who was not involved in the study, responded to its findings, saying that “couples who hit the honeymoon too early – that is, prioritize sex promptly at the outset of a relationship – often find their relationships underdeveloped when it comes to the qualities that make relationships stable and spouses reliable and trustworthy.” Regnerus is the author of Premarital Sex in America, a book forthcoming from Oxford University Press.

Because religious belief often plays a role for couples who choose to wait, Busby and his co-authors controlled for the influence of religious involvement in their analysis.

“Regardless of religiosity, waiting helps the relationship form better communication processes, and these help improve long-term stability and relationship satisfaction,” Busby said.

The Pew Research Center recently released a study highlighting rapidly changing views on the American family. About 29 percent of children under 18 now live with a parent or parents who are unwed or no longer married, a fivefold increase from 1960. About 15 percent have parents who are divorced or separated, and 14 percent have parents who were never married.

The survey also found that nearly 40 percent of Americans say marriage is becoming obsolete. According to the researchers, the changing views of family are being driven largely by young adults 18-29, who are more likely than older generations to have an unmarried or divorced parent or have friends who do. The survey revealed that young adults tend to have more liberal attitudes when it comes to spousal roles and living together before marriage.

Part of this disconnect in our culture may stem from the fact that many people don’t fully understand or appreciate the public importance of marriage; they view it as a purely private or church matter. Of course, the sharp increase in the divorce rates over the last 40 years has contributed greatly to the devaluation of marriage. Yet social science data continues to show overwhelmingly that children do best with a married mom and dad, and marriage is the best living arrangement for all involved.

The constant push to normalize sexual anarchy–specifically homosexual behavior and “marriage” type relationships–also has a powerfully negative effect on the public’s view and understanding of the institution of marriage. The radical political agenda of the Left that would grant any combination of individuals wishing to secure official government recognition of their relationship–and have it called “marriage”–undermines the notion of marriage as a unique institution. Court-mandated recognition of homosexual “marriage” and legislative compromises of “civil unions” in various states across the nation contribute greatly to the devaluation of marriage. The relentless push for counterfeit “marriage” ensures that marriage will become meaningless as a legal and social concept.

The church and groups like IFI must work to educate citizens about the important public purposes of marriage and the role it plays in building and sustaining healthy communities. There is no better way to counter those who think marriage is becoming obsolete.

Ironically, other surveys continue to show that most young adults want to be married. Time Magazine participated in this Pew Research survey. The magazine published an article entitled, “Who Needs Marriage? How an American Institution is Changing” discussing the research and survey results.

Researchers found that, in the words of the article, “marriage continues to be revered and desired.” In fact, the Pew poll found that although 44 percent of Americans under 30 believe marriage is heading for extinction, only 5 percent of those in that age group do not want to get married.

This is great news, indeed, and a good indication that young people have not given up on the idea of marriage.

John Adams, our second U.S. president, famously observed: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

The U.S. Constitution, indeed our entire republican form of government, was crafted by deeply pious men who were overwhelmingly Christian. It was fashioned within the context and framework of the Judeo-Christian zeitgeist of the time and was further intended to function in harmony with a Judeo-Christian worldview – period. Though leftists may deny this reality, it remains indisputable fact. The historical record is unequivocal.

Patrick Henry said this: “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!”

George Washington agreed:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. … [R]eason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

I’ll say it: I agree with George Washington. Those godless, postmodern secular-socialists, who, today, hold the reins of government, are unpatriotic. Fringe leftists like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid seek to “subvert” Washington’s “great pillars” of “religion and morality” and are distinctly un-American for it.

Part and parcel of Obama’s agenda has been to push, at a fever pitch, the most extremist pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, anti-Christian agenda in American history.

Indeed, in contrast with the deeply held religious and moral values embraced by our Founding Fathers, today’s America is governed by an “immoral” and “irreligious” chief executive. Barack Obama is the high priest of secular-socialism.

He seeks to undermine — if not altogether dismantle – the American exceptionalism that, hitherto, has been fundamentally woven throughout our national fabric.

He aspires to the lowest common denominator. He seeks to uproot Ronald Reagan’s “shining city on a hill” and relocate the “land of the free and the home of the brave” to a much lower altitude, alongside those Euro-Marxist nations he so admires and wistfully desires to emulate.

The U.S. Constitution was neither intended to, nor can it, work in harmony with the postmodern secular-socialist worldview embraced by those on the political left. Such a worldview is, by its very nature, counter-constitutional.

Whereas the Constitution was intended to guarantee individual liberty and justice, limit the size and scope of the federal government and secure freedom of speech and religious expression; the goal of the secular-socialist is to control nearly every aspect of an individual’s life, to massively expand the size and scope of the federal government and to suppress – if not altogether smother – freedom of speech and religious expression.

To the secular-socialist, the Constitution is a relevant document only insofar as it constitutes an encumbrance to “progress.” It must be circumvented and overcome at all cost, and by any means available. Why else do you suppose President Obama has called our original “contract with America” – the U.S. Constitution – an “imperfect document,” a “living document … that reflects some deep flaws in American culture …”?

Rather than properly viewing our Constitution as a God-inspired tool to be used in furtherance of Washington’s “indispensable supports” of “religion and morality,” this arrogant little man, with singular resolve and discipline, forges ahead with his thinly veiled, yet wholly destructive left-wing political agenda: Namely, to “fundamentally change America” to reflect his own secular-socialist self-image.

Au contraire, Monsieur le President.

Enter the tea-party revolution (a national clamoring for a return to our nation’s founding principles). America has coldly and quite vocally rejected Obama’s anti-American agenda.

You’ve heard it said, but I’ll say it again: People with conservative values – particularly Christians – need to take back America. We must take charge of government at every level from the municipal hall to the White House.

It’s time for men of the cloth — as they did during the first American Revolution – to exercise true leadership, return to the pulpit and call for national revival, both spiritual and political. As George Washington so astutely observed, the notion that political issues, and those of “religion and morality,” are somehow mutually exclusive, is patently absurd. They are one in the same.

Am I calling for a theocracy? Of course not. Am I calling for men and women of strong faith to retake control of all high-level positions of influence in government, academia, media and entertainment? Absolutely.

The late, great Rev. Jerry Falwell perhaps said it best: “I’m being accused of being controversial and political. I’m not political. But moral issues that become political, I still fight. It isn’t my fault that they’ve made these moral issues political. But because they have doesn’t stop the preachers of the Gospel from addressing them.”

Pastors, priests and rabbis: It’s up to you to address, head-on, these moral issues. Don’t be intimidated by anti-theist groups like the ACLU, American’s United for Separation of Church and State, People for the American Way and the like. These hard-left outfits engage in dishonest letter-writing schemes and file frivolous threats with the IRS in hopes of silencing you. Don’t be silenced.

Guess how many churches have been penalized, or have lost tax-exempt status due to even one of these complaints: Exactly zero. To call these groups “paper tigers” is too strong. They’re paper kittens.

Pastors: You have an absolute constitutional right, if not a duty, to stand at the pulpit and educate your flock about the hot-button political/moral issues of the day. You also have an absolute right to tell your flock exactly where candidates stand on these issues. You can even, as an individual, publicly endorse candidates. Most importantly, you have an absolute right to encourage parishioners to vote in accordance with their faith.

Biblical values must once again guide our political and cultural decisions and discourse, or tragically, this great American experiment – having survived longer than any governmental system in existence – may be at its twilight.

Still, I somehow doubt that the sun has set on this, the greatest nation on Earth. To borrow from a truly great president, Ronald Reagan, come Nov. 3, I suspect, instead, we’ll once again awaken to a bright new future. We’ll once again awaken to “morning in America.”

Christians: Make it happen.

AlbertMohler.com

Evangelical Christians are gravely concerned about the family, and this is good and necessary. But our credibility on the issue of marriage is significantly discounted by our acceptance of divorce. To our shame, the culture war is not the only place that an honest confrontation with the divorce culture is missing. Divorce is now the scandal of the evangelical conscience.

Mark A. Smith, who teaches political science at the University of Washington, pays close attention to what is now commonly called the “culture war” in America. Though the roots of this cultural conflict reach back to the 1960s, the deep divide over social and moral issues became almost impossible to deny during the late 1970s and ever since. It is now common wisdom to speak of “red” states and “blue” states and to expect familiar lines of division over questions such as abortion and homosexuality.

In the most general sense, the culture war refers to the struggle to determine laws and customs on a host of moral and political issues that separate Americans into two opposing camps, often presented as the religious right and the secular left. Though the truth is never so simple, the reality of the culture war is almost impossible to deny.

And yet, as Professor Smith surveyed the front lines of the culture war, he was surprised, not so much by the issues of hot debate and controversy, but by an issue that was obvious for its absence – divorce.

“From the standpoint of simple logic, divorce fits cleanly within the category of ‘family values’ and hence hypothetically could represent a driving force in the larger culture war,” he notes. “If ‘family values’ refers to ethics and behavior that affect, well, families, then divorce obviously should qualify. Indeed, divorce seems to carry a more direct connection to the daily realities of families than do the bellwether culture war issues of abortion and homosexuality.”

That logic is an indictment of evangelical failure and a monumental scandal of the evangelical conscience. When faced with this indictment, many evangelicals quickly point to the adoption of so-called “no fault” divorce laws in the 1970s. Yet, while those laws have been devastating to families (and especially to children), Smith makes a compelling case that evangelicals began their accommodation to divorce even before those laws took effect. No fault divorce laws simply reflected an acknowledgment of what had already taken place. As he explains, American evangelicals, along with other Christians, began to shift opinion on divorce when divorce became more common and when it hit close to home.

When the Christian right was organized in the 1970s and galvanized in the 1980s, the issues of abortion and homosexuality were front and center. Where was divorce? Smith documents the fact that groups such as the “pro-traditional family” Moral Majority led by the late Jerry Falwell generally failed even to mention divorce in their publications or platforms.

“During the 10 years of its existence, Falwell’s organization mobilized and lobbied on many political issues, including abortion, pornography, gay rights, school prayer, the Equal Rights Amendment, and sex education in schools,” he recalls. Where is divorce – a tragedy that affects far more families than the more “hot button” issues? “Divorce failed to achieve that exalted status, ranking so low on the group’s agenda that books on the Moral Majority do not even give the issue an entry in the index.”

But the real scandal is far deeper than missing listings in an index. The real scandal is the fact that evangelical Protestants divorce at rates at least as high as the rest of the public. Needless to say, this creates a significant credibility crisis when evangelicals then rise to speak in defense of marriage.

As for the question of divorce and public law, Smith traces a huge transition in the law and in the larger cultural context. In times past, he explains, both divorce and marriage were considered matters of intense public interest. But at some point, the culture was transformed, and divorce was reclassified as a purely private matter.

Tragically, the church largely followed the lead of its members and accepted what might be called the “privatization” of divorce. Churches simply allowed a secular culture to determine that divorce is no big deal, and that it is a purely private matter.

As Smith argues, the Bible is emphatic in condemning divorce. For this reason, you would expect to find evangelical Christians demanding the inclusion of divorce on a list of central concerns and aims. But this seldom happened. Evangelical Christians rightly demanded laws that would defend the sanctity of human life. Not so for marriage. Smith explains that the inclusion of divorce on the agenda of the Christian right would have risked a massive alienation of members. In summary, evangelicals allowed culture to trump Scripture.

An even greater tragedy is the collapse of church discipline within congregations. A perceived “zone of privacy” is simply assumed by most church members, and divorce is considered only a private concern.

Professor Smith is concerned with this question as a political scientist. Why did American evangelicals surrender so quickly as divorce gathered momentum in America? We must ask this same question with even greater urgency. How did divorce, so clearly identified as a grievous sin in the Bible, become so commonplace and accepted in our midst?

The sanctity of human life is a cause that demands our priority and sacrifice. The challenge represented by the possibility (or probability) of legalized same-sex marriage demands our attention and involvement, as well.

But divorce harms many more lives than will be touched by homosexual marriage. Children are left without fathers, wives without husbands, and homes are forever broken. Fathers are separated from their children, and marriage is irreparably undermined as divorce becomes routine and accepted. Divorce is not the unpardonable sin, but it is sin, and it is a sin that is condemned in no uncertain terms.

Evangelical Christians are gravely concerned about the family, and this is good and necessary. But our credibility on the issue of marriage is significantly discounted by our acceptance of divorce. To our shame, the culture war is not the only place that an honest confrontation with the divorce culture is missing.

Divorce is now the scandal of the evangelical conscience.

Last week in Washington, the Values Voter Summit honored the work of American Family Association’s founderDr. Don Wildmon for his 33 years of leadership and faithful service advocating conservative social and moral policies.

Wildmon began AFA in 1977 in the dining room of his home in Tupelo, Miss. The original name of the group was National Federation for Decency and its activities included battling against sexual content and violence on television and in magazines. As a result of its boycott campaigns, several large convenience and drugstore chains removed Playboy, Penthouse and other adult magazines from their shelves.

The group, which changed its name to AFA in 1988, has also protested PepsiCo for promoting the homosexual agenda and Gap Inc. for censoring the word Christmas in its advertisement. After an AFA boycott call, the latter company released an Old Navy commercial in which one of the characters sent a Christmas greeting to viewers.

AFA owns and operates 180 radio stations, has a monthly magazine and a staff of 175 employees.

Even though his son Tim Wildmon has taken over AFA, Don is still working daily. Those who follow Dr. Wildmon know that he narrowly escaped death this past year after a mosquito bite infected him with encephalitis. You will note in this moving video that he is walking with a cane as a result of that illness.

You can send a thank-you note to Don Wildmon at donwildmon@afa.net 

Here’s an excerpt from an excellent article on the intensifying public debate about whether conservatives should participate in a truce on the “social issues”(aka “essential moral issues”). It would be more accurate to describe this as de facto demand that conservatives temporarily cede the moral issues to cultural liberals and radicals within both the Republican and Democrat parties.

The article, which IFI is urging readers to read in its entirety, was written by Robert W. Patterson and is entitled “Fiscal Conservatism is Not Enough: What Social Conservatives Offer the Party of Lincoln.”

Here is just a small part of that article:

Theodore Roosevelt is not the only Republican president that, if alive today, would warn his party of the shortcomings of a narrow economic focus at the expense of a social vision. Similar moral concerns motivated the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln. According to two-time Lincoln Prize winner Allen C. Guelzo, his appreciation of and contention for “the necessity of a moral republic” as the only way to deal with the issue of slavery is what drove the home-schooled prairie lawyer to run for the Senate in 1858 and for president in 1860. That did not keep him from advancing economic arguments against slavery, but his “hatred” of the peculiar institution stemmed from his conviction that slavery is a moral wrong-an evil-that violated natural law and American founding principles.

His chief opponent, Senator Stephen A. Douglas, approached slavery in the same way that economic conservatives and most Democrats would prefer to deal with social issues today: keep questions of morality out of the public discussion. As an advocate of what Michael J. Sandel calls “the procedural republic”-which may well be the prevailing political philosophy of both parties today and the “mass upper-middle class” of [Ross] Douthat and [Reihan] Salam-Douglas feared that the injection of morality into national politics would polarize the nation, prevent the development of the western frontier, and hamper economic prosperity. His solution to the predicament of slavery was “popular sovereignty,” a variation of today’s “pro-choice” position on abortion: allow each territory to decide the issue before it was granted statehood; this way, Yankees and southerners would not have to argue over a “divisive” issue. As Guelzo summarizes:

Douglas, for Sandel, was the paragon of a “thin” notion of democracy, in which a preoccupation with personal rights trumps all notions of advancing a common good . . . . Lincoln, by contrast, saw politics as moved by a universal and shared morality, and opposed slavery as a violation of that morality. Douglas argued that the people ought to be allowed to make up their own minds about slavery . . . and that all that mattered was whether the process of making up those minds was open-ended and uncoerced; Lincoln argued that minds which could not see that slavery was an abomination were operating on the wrong principles.

If he were alive today, Lincoln would not be intimidated by “divisive” social issues. Nor would he listen to those seeking to narrow the party’s agenda to “fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets” or advance a “federalist” solution to abortion rights or marriage law. He might even suggest that influential voices that think the party can be fiscally conservative but socially neutral are operating on the wrong principles. The sixteenth president would surely want to see the GOP offer moral leadership for a country that faces a crisis almost as serious as what she faced in 1860.

Resting on its laurels in the wake of recent victories in Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersey, the party establishment may be tempted to dismiss all this talk about Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. But that would be short-sighted. If the party wants the prize that has remained out of reach since Kevin Phillips wrote The Emerging Republican Majority in 1969, it will need to listen, like never before, to its most loyal constituency and project a principled moral vision that transcends tax cuts, a vision that will resonate with the aspirations of middle America, not elites. If it does that, the Grand Old Party will not only save itself, but also might save America.

Read the article in its entirety HERE.

National Review Online (NRO) recently published an editorial entitled “The Case for Marriage.” The publication’s editors discuss how those in powerful positions in our society seem to be coming to the inevitable conclusion that our culture should be open to legalized same-sex marriage.

The editors argue that what is often lost in the debate surrounding legalized same-sex marriage is the reason why marriage has a public role in our society and why the government is involved. The main reason, in their opinion, is to regulate sex and to encourage childbearing as well as creating the ideal environment for raising children.

To read the full editorial, click HERE.

None of us who have written about the subject of homosexuality expect that we will change the minds of many homosexuals regarding the morality of their conduct. That is not why we write.

However, there is significant confusion among Americans in general about the subject, and it is for their benefit that we write these articles. Most people feel uncomfortable accepting homosexual relationships as equivalent with traditional marriage yet do not know whether those who practice it should be censured by the community. Those of us who are traditional Christians have no problem simply accepting the biblical injunctions regarding same-sex relationships and may not have taken the time to explain not only the commands of the Bible, but also some of the “whys” behind those commands. The fact is that there are times when we, as mere humans, cannot grasp all the reasons behind God’s laws and must accept them by faith.

But, God is neither arbitrary nor petty. His commandments are always grounded upon eternal principles and are designed for our benefit. I am aware that our opponents are offended by both our position on this issue and the implication that they do not understand or accept that God knows better than any of us what is right and good for us. Too bad. As I see it, Truth is Truth whether I like it or accept it. There have been many times in my life that I have not appreciated the way the universe operates, yet I must come to terms with it. The laws of the universe will not change simply because I don’t like them. “I cannot break them, they will break me,” to paraphrase an old saying.

Besides the simple fact that the Bible forbids homosexual conduct, there are numerous reasons why we, as a culture, ought not accept it as normal or legitimize it by calling it “marriage.” I would like to address only one of them here. While it is biblically based, it is such a clear and universal principle that anyone who is willing can see it.

I am referring to the principle that no child should ever have to suffer unnecessarily from the decisions and practices of adults. In my mind, children should be buffered as much as possible even from legitimate choices that adults make. For example: at certain ages, children are very sensitive to major changes in their lives; therefore, parents should be extremely careful of up-rooting the family to move just to “improve” their financial circumstances. And, while it is legitimate for women to take work outside the home, it is now understood that children do better being cared for by their own mother than by a child-care worker. Parents ought to do all that they possibly can to keep one parent with the children rather than simply placing them in a day-care so that mom and dad can pursue their own “self-fulfillment.”

My point is that children deserve extra protection in every regard because they have virtually no ability to protect themselves. They did not ask to be born, they have no power, no wealth, no escape, and no attorney; we adults owe it to them to provide them not only a “good” environment but the very best possible. It is appalling to me that while we accept as legitimate apparently frivolous lawsuits over things like spilled coffee, we at the same time tolerate horrendous abuses against children. Make no mistake, children are badly injured by the divorce of their parents, yet we do virtually nothing to avert it. They are also abused by the general destruction and weakening of marriage itself. Children may survive failed marriages, they may recover from cultural confusion regarding marriage, but they are injured and weakened by them.

It is one thing when I make a poor choice that costs only me. It is a different matter when my poor choices affect and injure innocent children. Again, it is an uncontested fact that children do best when they are in a traditional, loving, two parent home. There are undeniably times when such a home cannot exist, as when a death occurs, and yes, adults will make bad choices. However, when a culture and its leaders knowingly and intentionally undermine and even destroy the environment that gives a child the best shot at a successful and normal life, that ought to be criminal.

Throughout history cultures have given special privileges to married couples in order to provide the most protection possible to children. They understood that the future of their community and culture depended upon the well-being of the children. Those privileges were not accorded couples for their own sake or to punish others. The people were simply wise enough to know that if their community were to survive beyond a few years, the next generation needed special protections.

Giving the same benefits of marriage to people in any other type of relationship necessarily weakens marriage by rendering it common and thus undermines to some degree the security and benefits children gain from marriage. This has occurred in European countries. Where alternatives thrive, traditional marriage has languished. When abnormal becomes normal, normal necessarily becomes abnormal. This must not be permitted with marriage.

It is an imperative that anything, whether big or small, that would undermine the well-being of children must be frowned upon by the community at large. This would include, among other things, divorce and the legitimizing of same-sex relationships.

Part of being an adult is to accept the consequences of one’s choices. If one chooses to do those things that are not normal and which most people consider unusual, he ought to accept that without demanding society change its values.

Marriage, the family, and thus children are under fierce attack in America. Let it not be said that under the banner of “equal rights” we trampled on the rights and needs of children to a normal up-bringing, and destroyed the happiness and security which ought to be the experience of every little one.