On Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (3rd Circuit) vacated a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Order which found that CBS violated the broadcast indecency law in its airing of the 2004 Super Bowl Halftime Show, a move that Morality in Media (MIM) calls unfortunate.

“The 3rd Circuit might be on solid ground had the halftime show breast-baring incident involving Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson been a complete accident in an otherwise unobjectionable show. But as the FCC Order shows, the 2004 Halftime Show was sexually charged from beginning to end, and the exposure of Ms. Jackson’s breast was anything but a complete accident,” said Robert Peters, MIM General Counsel & President Emeritus.

“This wasn’t a burlesque show intended for ‘consenting adults.’ This was the most watched TV program of the year, aired during prime time hours and watched by millions of children.  This wasn’t a case of CBS not knowing that its programming might violate community standards.   This was case of CBS not caring about community standards. The FCC is to be commended for its determination that the 2004 Super Bowl Halftime Show violated the broadcast indecency law,” said Peters.

About Morality in Media:  Founded in 1962, Morality in Media, Inc. is the leading organization focused on opposing pornography and indecency through public education and the application of the law. MIM is leading The War on Illegal Pornography, a coalition of more than 100 national and state groups whose goal is to stop the distribution of illegal pornography. For more information visit www.PornHarms.com, www.WarOnIllegalPornography.com, and Morality in Media.

On Tuesday, John Keilman wrote a lighthearted editorial on last week’s annual dishonest campaign by the American Library Association (ALA) laughably named “Banned Books Week.”

His personal story was revelatory. Keilman shared that when he was young, pulp novels with “absolutely no redeeming value” beckoned with an irresistible force. He describes what so powerfully attracted him: their “lurid” titles and the cover art which depicted the hero with “his arm around a busty woman, blasting a hole through some underworld stooge.”

But then after explicitly stating the sexual and violent language and imagery that served as “catnip to a preteen” boy, he almost-deftly switches his argument.

After describing the features that actually appealed to him, he then spends the rest of the article suggesting that what motivated him to sneakily read these novels was parental disapproval. From that strained but common argument he posits, perhaps disingenuously, that since kids are attracted to books that parents prohibit, if we just prohibit good books, kids will be attracted to them. Yes, Keilman believes that all parents need do is furrow their censorious brows at Moby Dick and before they know it, little Betty will be hidden under her covers with a flashlight reading about Ahab’s battle with the great fish.

Here are some of the issues surrounding “Banned Books Week” that Keilman ignored:

• Most parents are not requesting that a book be banned. Most parents are requesting one of three things: 1. that a book be moved to an adult section of the library, 2. that a library not use its limited resources to purchase a particular book, or 3. that a publicly funded school not select a particular book to be taught.Parents are not requesting that publishing companies be prohibited from publishing particular book titles, that parents be prohibited from purchasing them, or that Amazon stop selling them.
• Books that are never purchased can’t be “banned.” So, for example, when school and community libraries refuse to purchase or request books that espouse conservative assumptions about the nature and morality of homosexuality, there’s no opportunity for “progressives” to “ban” books. Their censorship is achieved prior to the purchase of books; it’s far more comprehensive; and it’s much more cunning in that librarians have created the de facto censorship protocol, euphemistically named “Collection Development Policies” (CDPs), that effectively bans books they don’t like (i.e., conservative books) with nary a controversial word messily spilling out into the public square. If CDPs resulted in no books being purchased that espouse liberal assumptions about homosexuality, you can bet your bottom dollar that ALA members and diversity devotees everywhere would throw a wobbly even Rumpelstiltskin would admire.

Here’s an interesting exercise for Mr. Keilman and anyone who cares about both intellectual diversity and how their taxes are spent: Search your local high school’s or community’s library catalogue from the comfort of your home using the search terms “sexual orientation,” “lesbian,” “gay,” and “homosexuality.” Count up how many resources espouse liberal assumptions about the nature and morality of homosexuality (scores and scores) versus how many affirm conservative assumptions (close to nil).

Then try to get your library to fill the gaping hole in its book collection by ordering some of these:

• A Queer Thing Happened to America by Michael L. Brown
• Divorcing Marriage edited by Daniel Cere and Douglas Farrow
• The Gay Gospel by Joe Dallas
• The Bible and Homosexual Practice by Robert A.J. Gagnon
• The Meaning of Marriage: Family, State, Market, & Morals ed. by Robert P. George and Jean Bethke Elshtain
• Light in the Closet by Arthur Goldberg
• Ex-Gays?: A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation by Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse
• The Marketing of Evil by David Kupelian
• Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth by Jeffrey Satinover, M.D.
• Outrage: How Gay Activists and Liberal Judges are Trashing Democracy to Redefine Marriage by Peter Sprigg
• Marriage on Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting by Glenn T. Stanton and Dr. Bill Maier
• The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today by Alan Sears and Craig Osten
• Same-Sex Marriage: Putting Every Household at Risk by Matthew D. Staver
• Out from Under by Dawn Stefanowicz
• Correct, Not Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone by Frank Turek
• Homosexuality and American Public Life edited by Christopher Wolfe
• Same-Sex Matters: The Challenge of Homosexuality edited by Christopher Wolfe
• Out of a Far Country by Christopher Yuan

If your library refuses to order any of these books citing Collection Development Policies as their reason, remind them of these words from the former head of the ALA’s Office of Intellectual Freedom, Judith Krug:

We have to serve the information needs of all the community and for so long “the community” that we served was the visible community…. And so, if we didn’t see those people, then we didn’t have to include them in our service arena. The truth is, we do have to.

…

We never served the gay community. Now, we didn’t serve the gay community because there weren’t materials to serve them. You can’t buy materials if they’re not there. But part of our responsibility is to identify what we need and then to begin to ask for it. Another thing we have to be real careful about is that even though the materials that come out initially aren’t wonderful, it’s still incumbent upon us to have that voice represented in the collection. This was exactly what happened in the early days of the women’s movement, and as the black community became more visible and began to demand more materials that fulfilled their particular information needs. We can’t sit back and say, “Well, they’re not the high-quality materials I’m used to buying.” They’re probably not, but if they are the only thing available, then I believe we have to get them into the library. [emphasis added]

According to Krug, intellectual diversity is of such paramount importance that it trumps even quality of material. And if resources are scarce, Krug believes it is the obligation of librarians to ask for them.

In remembering the books that so tantalized him as a boy, Keilman offered one other illuminating reflection: “If they never make the most-challenged list, it’s probably because no respectable school library would stock them in the first place.”

To read more on IFI’s response to “Banned Books Week” (and the Tribune), click HERE.

Fatherhood isn’t for the fainthearted. It’s a calling every bit as demanding-maybe even more so-as being a, say, fireman or policeman. That’s the life lesson Adam Mitchell, an Albany, Ga., deputy sheriff, learns in Courageous, Sherwood Pictures’ follow-up to Fireproof.

Adam is someone many fathers will identify with. He wears his uniform with pride. He provides for his wife, Victoria, and his two children. And because of that he figures he’s not actually required to join his teenage son, Dylan, in a 5K father-son race. And even though 9-year-old Emily is the apple of his eye, he’s quite positive that he’s too dignified (read: embarrassed) to dance with her in a parking lot just because she begs. “I’m dancing with you in my heart, honey,” he explains.

Let me put it another way: Adam works hard. He deserves a little TV time at the end of the day.

Adam’s not the only father we meet here. Actually, the movie’s chockablock with them. Fellow officer Shane Fuller is a divorced father struggling to make alimony payments for two sons. Atlanta cop Nathan Hayes has just moved back to Albany to raise his three children with wife Kayla-a job he’s determined to do better than his deadbeat dad did. Rookie David Thomson looks like a carefree bachelor, but we soon learn that he’s hiding his fatherhood. And Javier Martinez, the only man in this group who’s not on the force, is fighting like mad to keep from losing his home. A home that currently shelters his wife and two young’uns.

By day these men either pursue Albany’s drug dealers (or gainful employment). By night they manage the mundane affairs of their households. On weekends, they congregate around a backyard grill to mull their everyman conundrums.

Until, that is, tragedy strikes Adam, opportunity finds Javier, conviction changes David and temptation tugs at Shane. It’s time for God’s love and principles to win the day and make a few good fathers great fathers.

[Note: The following sections contain spoilers.]

Positive Elements: The opening scene uses action and danger to provide a metaphor for what heroic fatherhood is all about: Nathan has just filled his truck up with gas and is about to squeegee his windows when a gangster hops into the driver’s seat and rams the vehicle into gear. Nathan dives into the window and fights for control as they move down the road. It’s a harrowing fight that ends with the truck hitting a tree and the thief fleeing on foot. A shocked onlooker remarks, “Don’t worry about the car!” “I’m not worried about the car,” Nathan says, opening the truck’s back door to reveal a squealing infant.

Adam and Shane soon arrive, and afterward they discuss whether they would have acted so heroically. “Would you have held on?” Adam asks his partner.

That question fully frames Courageous’ look at fatherhood: What does it take? And what will you do?

It’s a concept Adam doesn’t really face head-on until his precious Emily is killed (offscreen) by a drunk driver. But from that moment on, for his family it’s all about being there for one another. When Adam laments, “I should have been a better father,” his wife responds, “You’re still a father.” And when Victoria cries that if she’d made a different decision, Emily would still be alive, Adam tries to help her escape her tortured “What if?” thinking. Even stoic Dylan eventually cracks, sobbing, “I wish I would have been a better brother.” Adam responds, “I love you, buddy. You are my son, and I am so proud of you. Don’t ever forget that.”

Adam seeks out his pastor’s counsel. And at the end of the conversation, Adam resolves, “I want to heal. I want to know what God expects of me as a father. And I want to know how to help my wife and son.” Bible study provides him with his roadmap. And he develops a written resolution expressing his new commitment. It’s a document he and each of his friends commit to in a formal ceremony. Their vow begins, “I do solemnly resolve before God that I will take full responsibility for myself, my wife and my children. I will love them, protect them and serve them, and teach them the statutes of God as the spiritual leader of my home.”

Albany’s sheriff delivers a report that includes statistics linking fatherlessness to crime. Reinforcing those stats is Nathan’s own story: When David suggests that divorce isn’t that big a deal, Nathan counters, “Not having a father as a child scarred me in more ways than I can count,” and says that he probably would have joined a gang were it not for an older Christian man who mentored him. Conversations like those eventually prompt David to admit he fathered a child out of wedlock in college, and that he subsequently abandoned the young woman and their child. Mixing in the message of salvation, Nathan challenges the young officer to take responsibility, which David does in the form of a letter to his child’s mother that asks for forgiveness, offers financial support and commits to being present in the child’s life if trust and relationship can be restored.

We learn that David’s girlfriend refused to abort her baby even though he intimates that he asked her to.

Nathan sets out to teach his 15-year-old daughter, Jade, why she can’t date quite yet and how he and her mother will be proactively involved in getting to know any young man she’s interested in. A special father-daughter dinner provides the backdrop for him presenting her with a purity ring-which she eagerly accepts.

Part and parcel with the film’s fatherhood themes is its emphasis on friendship. But it doesn’t stop with the obvious benefits of having or being a friend. It dives into why such relationships are so important. Adam and his police peers, along with Javier, who joins their group after doing home-improvement work for Adam, meet over meals to talk about life. And their winsome camaraderie gradually goes deeper as they challenge one another to “man up.”

Courage is seen in the line of duty, too. And when Adam discovers Shane has been stealing (and, it’s implied, selling) drugs from the evidence room, he grimly does what needs to be done: reveal his partner’s crime. Adam then visits Shane in prison, vowing to help him and his family in any way that he can. (It’s clear that Shane regrets his choices.) Similarly, Nathan visits a gang member in prison to mentor him spiritually.

Spiritual Content: Emily’s funeral includes an explanation of the hope Christ gives as the pastor says, “Because He lives, Emily lives.” The film concludes in church with Adam delivering a rousing call for dads to serve God by serving their kids. “Walk with [your children] through their young lives,” he preaches, “and be a visual representation of the character of God, their Father in heaven.”

Adam tells his own son, “What I want for you is that you seek the Lord, that you trust Him, even if it means you’re standing alone.”

Nathan talks with David about every person’s guilt before God and the cleansing forgiveness that’s available in Christ because of His sacrifice. It’s a message David accepts. Nathan also visits his father’s grave and talks about how he’s learned to accept God’s love for him despite his earthly father’s abandonment. He forgives his father and mentions that he hopes the man met Jesus before he died.

Javier and Carmen repeatedly try to cast their care on Christ when it comes to their family’s income insecurities, even though they can’t see how He’ll provide. And when Javier is faced with the temptation of cheating as a way to get a promotion at a new job, he tells his employers that he won’t dishonor God by lying.

Prayers are sincere and full of both faith and honest questions. After Emily’s death, Adam tells his pastor, “I want to trust Him. I just don’t understand what He is doing.” His pastor replies, “He doesn’t promise us explanations. But He does promise to walk with us through the pain.” After some time passes, we see Adam thanking God for his years with Emily, and asking Him to tell her he completed the dance with her (which we see him do on the lawn as he imagines dancing with her).

Sexual Content: David briefly references the fact that he “hooked up” with a cheerleader, a romance that resulted in an unintended pregnancy. Nathan tells David that his father had six different children by three different women.

Violent Content: The opening sequence, where Nathan dives into the window of his truck, is one of several intense police vs. criminals encounters. Nathan hits the thief with his fist and tries to hang on as the carjacker tries to shake him off, eventually plunging the vehicle into a ditch where it hits a tree.

Another scene involves a lengthy police chase of two suspected drug dealers on foot and in cars, after which they’re apprehended amid scuffles. Then, late in the film, a final confrontation proves to be the most explosive, as small-time pushers unsuccessfully try to shoot police with a pistol and a shotgun. After a bullet-ridden standoff and two punishing fistfights, all the baddies are apprehended. But before they are, it looks as if one of them is going to take a little girl hostage, grabbing at her as she screams and runs.

From outside the circle, we see a ring of young men kicking someone on the ground. Eventually the gang’s leader calls off the assault, and we learn that it was an initiation rite.

Crude or Profane Language: None.

Drug and Alcohol Content: A drug dealer evading police tries to hide a plastic bag containing drugs. Gang members talk about having two kilos of contraband. A police officer gets caught trying to steal drugs from the evidence room.

David talks disparagingly about his father, whom, he says, told him, “I better not catch you drinking”-while he held a beer. He also says his father used to sneak outside to smoke cigarettes during church.

Other Negative Elements: Javier’s temptation to cheat at work comes in the form of a “test” from his new supervisors that, while realistic, can easily be construed as unethical. In exchange for a management position, two of his bosses ask Javier to falsify information on a manifest report. After Javier declines, the men tell him they were just trying to see if he was trustworthy, and state that six previous candidates failed.

Adam, on something of an ill-conceived lark, has Javier pretend to be a gangbanger in order to scare a guy he’s just arrested for dealing.

Conclusion: Fatherhood, for all its significant rewards, can be pretty tiring business. As I’m writing this, I myself am quite weary. Last night my 1-year-old decided she wasn’t going to sleep at 8:00 as she usually does. Instead, she was determined to keep playing … and playing. Rest? Sleep? Bed? She was having none of that. Four-plus hours later, she mercifully nodded off. Her 3-year-old sister, however, popped up crying three hours later, so you can guess what happened to my REM state.

I say this not looking for sympathy but to illustrate the reality that fatherhood (and motherhood, of course), is a job that’s never done. In the moments when I lose my perspective or temper-and I do sometimes-it’s tempting to feel sorry for myself, to whine, “What about my needs?”

So I saw a lot of myself in Adam Mitchell. He’s doing his job at work and more or less getting the job done at home. He’s in what the film labels “good enough” territory. Ultimately, though, he realizes that good enough isn’t, that God longs for fathers to embrace a much higher calling.

It took tragedy to get Adam’s onscreen attention. I sincerely hope that this film can serve that purpose for me … and many other sometimes flagging fathers. In a world full of pressure and distraction, Courageous reminds me that no matter how much I get caught up in my daily demands, there’s nothing more precious or important than God’s call for me to shepherd the little lambs He’s lovingly, amazingly entrusted to my care.

Even when they absolutely refuse to go to sleep.

A postscript: More violent than previous Sherwood Baptist movies (Fireproof and Facing the Giants), Courageous isn’t so much a movie for the whole family as it is a movie for the benefit of the whole family. Discernment should be used in deciding how young is too young to watch drug dealers shooting at and fighting with policemen.

via Plugged In

According to one group that works to advance truth and virtue in the public square, television viewers should prepare for another season of filth.

Matt Philbin, managing editor of the Media Research Center’s Culture and Media Institute (CMI), warns that the upcoming season proves “Hollywood is out of ideas — and if they can’t center a show around sex, they really don’t have a show to sell.” Hollywood claims it is simply filling the demand for smut, but Philbin suggests they live in a different world.

“It’s a monolithically liberal culture in Hollywood,” he contends. “It is a culture that sees nothing wrong with public discussions of sex, that feels no compunction about placing sex at the center of just about every product.” So, he concludes, it is no oversight on their part when it does happen.

One example of an upcoming show is NBC’s The Playboy Club, which “centers on the Bunnies and patrons of the original Playboy Club in 1960s Chicago.”

Philbin references Primetime Propaganda, a book by Ben Shapiro, who interviewed Hollywood creative types about liberal social bias. “They admit that, yes — it’s in there, and they essentially, some of them admitted contempt for a traditionalist, religious moral worldview. So there is a certain amount of intention in there,” the CMI managing editor shares.

He says this year’s TV lineup is morally edgy and filthy in some cases. And while it is marketed during primetime to adults and youngsters, sexual intimacy and drug and alcohol abuse present the most dangerous messages. So Philbin advises that viewers beware and that parents exercise more control over what their children watch on television.

Responding to a letter-to-the-editor I sent in earlier this month in which I accuse the state of Illinois of being guilty of religious discrimination in shutting down Catholic Charities’ vital and laudable foster care and adoption work, the editors of The Daily Herald opined:

When we wrote in this space that it was time for Illinois to have civil unions, we quoted Gov. Pat Quinn, who said we “need to encourage tolerance in this state.” And that’s just what the legislature did when it passed the law allowing for civil unions and what Quinn did when he signed it. However, with that law (effective on June 1) came another issue. Again, we side with Quinn.

Catholic Charities in five Illinois dioceses, including those covering DuPage, Kane and McHenry counties in the Daily Herald circulation area, are suing the state so the agencies would not have to accept civil union and unmarried couples as foster parents. At issue is the state money used by Catholic Charities to run their programs for about 2,000 children. Illinois now requires that foster and adoptive care agencies treat same-sex couples in civil unions the same as married couples if they want to use state dollars.

“If an organization … decides they don’t want to voluntarily participate with the state, they have that choice and we honor that choice,” Quinn said last month, as quoted by the Capitol Fax Blog. “We have other entities that are involved in foster care that are willing to assume that duty.”

And therein lies the crux of the debate: Faith-based agencies like Catholic Charities are not forced to accept state money and therefore are not forced to change long-held beliefs. This is not a freedom of religion issue.

We believe, however, that there are many same-sex couples who would make excellent foster or adoptive parents if given the chance. Loving families and good parenting skills are not limited to straight couples or single people.

And yet that is exactly what opponents of the civil union law believe and espouse. David E. Smith, executive director of the Illinois Family Institute in Carol Stream, said as much in a letter to the editor on this page on Monday.

” … In upholding traditional religious teachings, and in the best interests of children, (Catholic Charities) will not place foster children in nonmarried or homosexual homes,” Smith wrote. A person’s sexual orientation on its own should not be a disqualifier. That’s a form of discrimination the state won’t and shouldn’t accept.

We hope the Illinois judicial system affirms the state’s point in this matter. All they need to do is look to Rockford to see that there are alternatives. About 300 foster-care cases once handled by the Rockford Diocese were transferred to the Youth Services Bureau of Illinois Valley when the diocese shut its program down. In 2007, when the Chicago Archdiocese halted its foster-care services because of insurance issues, the state also was able to transfer cases to other agencies.

“We will explore every option to prevent disruption to these children,” said Ken Marlowe, spokesman for the Department of Children and Family Services. “Discrimination has no place in child welfare.”

IFI’s Laurie Higgins submitted a response to their editorial, which the Daily Herald declined to publish.

Take ACTION: Help us expose the fallacious and destructive ideas promoted by the Daily Herald by forwarding this email to friends and by posting it to Facebook and Twitter.

Here is Laurie’s fantastic response:

The Daily Herald reveals a profound lack of understanding when it argues that homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children because in the Daily Herald’s view “Loving families and good parenting skills are not limited to straight couples or single people.”

If those are the only criteria necessary for parental fitness, then the Daily Herald must support adoption by polyamorists or incestuous couples, for surely there are polyamorists and brother-sister couples who are capable of “loving and parenting” children.

Historically, however, criteria for adoptive fitness have included not merely the capacity of those adopting to love and parent children. Criteria for adoptive fitness included an evaluation of the moral nature of the relationship between adopting parents. Types of relationships considered inherently morally flawed would be excluded from adoptive consideration.

Of course, in a wiser, less relativistic culture, this criterion did not need to be explicitly articulated. It would go without saying that society would not place children in environments defined by inherently morally flawed relationships — like polygamous, incestuous, or homosexual relationships — regardless of the ability of the partners to love, parent, and provide for children.

Despite specious arguments to the contrary, subjective homosexual attraction and volitional homosexual acts do not constitute a condition analogous to race, and disapproval of homosexuality is not analogous to racism. Making judgments about the morality of homosexuality is no more unethically discriminatory than is making judgments about the morality of polyamory or adult consensual incest. Once society jettisons an evaluation of the inherent morality of the relationships between (or among) adopting parents, there is no rational reason to prohibit polyamorists or incestuous couples from adopting.

Religious — and non-religious — adoption agencies do have the right and should have the freedom to make distinctions about what types of relationships constitute moral relationships. The government is overstepping its bounds when it attempts to impose the subjective moral assumptions of homosexual activists and their ideological allies on all child welfare organizations.

On August 4th, the front page of the Chicago Tribune reported in bold letters “Same-sex households skyrocket in Illinois,” claiming a 40 percent increase in this demographic over the past 10 years. Similar liberally biased stories have appeared in the State-Journal Register, Jacksonville Journal Courier and Quad-City Times.

At first blush, it sounds impressive. But a closer look at the data belies the Tribune’s “skyrocket” claim. The Census Bureau reports that there are 4,836,972 total households in the Land of Lincoln. The Census also reports there are 32,469 same-sex households in Illinois. Doing the math reveals that this “skyrocketing” population is less than a full percent of the total. In fact, it is only 0.67 percent of the total.

Two-thirds of a percent and the Chicago Tribune assigns a misleading headline that suggests that this demographic is “skyrocketing.” Despite their obvious exaggeration, the fact remains, 0.67 percent is a statistically insignificant number and not a news-worthy story, much less a front page headline — that is, unless there is a blatant attempt to bolster and advance a dubious political agenda.

Mainstream media and academia, for the most part, want us to believe this is a much bigger demographic than it is. The reality is encouraging; this isn’t a lost effort and we are do not face insurmountable odds. Despite the homosexual cheerleading by liberal institutions, we must remain steadfast in this cultural battle. Moreover, we need to remember that God is sovereign, and He is in the business of changing hearts and minds. Homosexuality is changeable, just like any other sinful behavior.

With fewer and fewer family-friendly TV shows and more and more that require strict parental controls in place, NBC now wants to bring into your family room a series called The Playboy Club.

An NBC affiliate in Salt Lake City has already refused to air the show, saying their station is “completely inconsistent with the Playboy brand.”

Morality in Media and others, including IFI, are dead serious about pressuring NBC to can the series.

Patrick Trueman, president of Morality in Media, told ABCNews.com. “This show glorifies Hugh Hefnerand the Playboy philosophy toward women — use them, abuse them and discard them — and that’s enough to upset people.”

Trueman, who is leading a coalition of 10 organizations under the umbrella, War on Illegal Pornography, acknowledged that he and others haven’t seen much material from the show but are relying on reports that the show’s actresses were required to sign agreements saying they would appear nude and participate in simulated sex acts.

…

Trueman, the former chief of the Justice Department’s child exploitation and obscenity section, said depictions of sex could violate federal indecency laws.

With NBC in fourth place among networks, Trueman issued them a stern warning, “Every advertiser on The Playboy Club will be boycotted, every local affiliate of NBC will be bombarded by a very large segment of society that is sick and tired of those making money off the sexual exploitation of women,” he said.

By the American Family Association

NBC introduced its Sunday coverage of the US Open golf championship with a patriotically-themed piece, which included two recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance by American schoolchildren.

Astonishingly, NBC edited the words “under God” out of the Pledge not once but twice. Then an NBC commentator apologized on air later in the broadcast, admitting that NBC had edited the Pledge, but saying nothing, absolutely nothing, about which part of the Pledge NBC deliberately left on the cutting room floor.

NBC clumsily tried to conceal its insult to America’s religious heritage by inserting voice-overs after the words that preceded “under God,” in the vain hope that the American people would not notice. It didn’t work.

Watch the video montage here, in which you can see for yourself the hatchet job NBC did on the Pledge, and the network’s evasive apology.

NBC has offered no justification for its intentional decision to leave God out of the Pledge. Call or email NBC today and demand an explanation.

National Broadcasting Company, Inc.
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112
212-664-4444
nbcsportshelp@nbcuni.com 

Chris McCloskey – V.P., Communications
NBC Sports
(212) 664-5598
christopher.mccloskey@nbcuni.com

Talking points for the phone call:

1. I am furious with NBC for leaving “under God” out of the Pledge not once but twice in Sunday’s coverage of the US Open golf championship.

2. NBC’s on-air apology is completely unsatisfactory, because NBC did not admit which part of the Pledge had been removed.

3. I am calling to insist on an explanation from NBC for this grossly unpatriotic act.

By Michael Watson, Accuracy in Media

On his TV show “Fareed Zakaria GPS” (transcript here) from Sunday, June 19, 2011, journalist Fareed Zakaria of CNN and Time magazine stated that “we could use the ideas of social media that were actually invented in this country to suggest a set of amendments to modernize the constitution for the 21st Century.” Zakaria praised the nation of Iceland for using Facebook and Twitter to solicit revisions to the country’s WWII-era constitution. However, in making the case that the United States should “talk about a few revisions” to the current Constitution, Zakaria undermines his own case.

Zakaria notes that although the nation of Iceland only became a republic “all the way back in 1944,” the Icelandic people “all wanted a fresh start” after the financial crisis. Zakaria claims that since the Icelandic political tradition dates to the first Althingi (parliament) in 930 AD, the 222-year history of Constitutional government in the United States should not be an obstacle to radical systemic change.

Zakaria begins his case by noting that the Constitution has been formally amended 27 times. This is not an effective argument that the Constitution needs to be changed now; rather, it is an argument that the present Constitutional order is capable of responding to challenges as grave as the abolition of slavery and the extension of the franchise to women.

Zakaria characterizes the Electoral College as “highly undemocratic.” In this assertion he is correct: The United States is not a democracy but rather a representative federal republic. Zakaria argues that since the College “[allows] for the possibility that someone could get elected as president even if he or she had a smaller share of the total national vote than his opponent” it is an example of an “[issue] that still [needs] to be debated and fixed.”

Zakaria calls the Senate “even more undemocratic” noting that California’s 36 million citizens have the same representation as Wisconsin’s six million. Again Zakaria is technically correct and misses the point. The Senate exists as the representative body of the nation’s constituent sovereign states, while the House of Representatives is the representative body of the nation’s citizens.

Zakaria feels that the clearest evidence of the “issues that need to be debated and fixed” can be found in the presidential election of 2000. In addition to his (correct) claim that the Electoral College can result in a president who won a smaller share of the national popular vote than some other candidate being elected, Zakaria asserts that “we [the U.S.] are surely the only modern nation that could be paralyzed as we were in 2000 over an election dispute because we lack a simple national electoral system.”

This assertion is false on two grounds. First, the Constitutional system in the United States was not paralyzed by the disputes in Florida after the election. The duly elected President (William Jefferson Clinton) completed his term of office and the duly elected Congress led by Speaker Dennis Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott and conducted legislative affairs. The Supreme Courts of Florida and the United States heard the lawsuits raised by Vice President Gore and Governor Bush in accordance with their respective Constitutions and the final ruling in Bush v. Gore was faithfully executed. The Constitution as currently amended and practiced had within it all the procedures necessary to resolve the dispute. Indeed, even though Vice President Gore did not agree with the decision, the Constitutional order in the U.S. is so strong that (in his ex officio capacity as President of the Senate) Vice President Gore presided over the electoral vote count and denied objections to the counting of the decisive Florida electoral votes.

There is another ground on which Zakaria’s assertion is factually inaccurate. There is at least one other modern country that has been “paralyzed” by an electoral system that derives from its national heritage. Belgium, for instance, is frequently “paralyzed” by the complicated nature of its electoral politics (although some don’t think that is so bad). Because Belgian political parties do not compete nationally but rather within their own regions (Flanders, Wallonia, and Brussels Capital Region) and linguistic communities (Dutch, French, and German), no party can receive a national majority of seats. The result is that since the most recent general election of June 13, 2010 (that is, over one year ago last week), Belgium has had a caretaker government led by Prime Minister Yves Leterme, whose Christian Democratic and Flemish Party were relegated to third place in the election. The crisis is the longest in the modern history of parliamentary democracy.

Zakaria uses a bad example to make the case that the American constitutional order needs a Facebook revolution. Not only is his case actually a demonstration of the strengths of the American model of a consensual republic, Zakaria is also factually incorrect. Zakaria goes on to claim that “[he’s] just suggesting we talk about a few revisions [to the US Constitution].” Some might “suggest” Zakaria needs “a few revisions” to his “GPS” before he rushes headlong into changing a 222-year-old document.

Effort Seeks To Make It Unprofitable For NBC To Exploit Women

WASHINGTON, June 9, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — NBC is contributing to the sexual objectification and exploitation of women and encouraging greater acceptance of pornography with its soon-to-be-aired series, “The Playboy Club,” according to The Coalition for the War on Illegal Pornography, which is launching a full-scale effort to stop the show from being profitable.

“Since the 50s, sleazy Hugh Hefner and his Playboy Magazine has pushed a philosophy which dictated that, to the ‘sophisticated man,’ the female is a mere toy to be used, abused and discarded. That philosophy has inflicted unimaginable harm to our society, now documented by years of research. The harms of pornography include addiction of children and adults, violence against women, sexual trafficking, increased child pornography, destruction of marriages, and so much more,” said Patrick A. Trueman, President of Morality in Media, the lead organization in the War on Illegal Pornography Coalition.

“Today – with the cooperation of NBC and the network’s use of the public airwaves – Playboy is poised to cause even more harm, this time bringing its sleaze directly into America’s living rooms. We don’t need NBC to pour more fuel to that fire,” he added.

Playboy, once equated with ‘soft-core’ pornography, distributes hardcore pornography on pay TV channels and the Internet. Distribution of hardcore pornography can be prosecuted under federal and state obscenity laws, warned Trueman, a former chief of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, U.S. Department of Justice.

“NBC may have a license to use the public airwaves, but it abuses its privilege when it collaborates with hardcore pornographer Playboy and promotes the exploitation of women,” he added. “The Playboy Club and the Playboy philosophy must be stopped,” said Trueman.

He is encouraging citizens to sign the pledge at www.CloseTheClubOnNBC.com to make it unprofitable for NBC to exploit women.

About Morality in Media – Morality in Media, Inc. is the leading national organization focused on opposing obscenity and indecency through public education and the application of the law. For more information visit www.waronillegalpornography.com, www.moralityinmedia.org and www.pornharms.com.

Media Contact:
Lesley Bateman
813-849-0076 x106
Lesley@design4.org

via Morality in Media

AUSTIN, Texas, May 17, 2011 /Christian Newswire/ — MTV has banned a media campaign of life-affirming, call-for-help commercials produced by Heroic Media which were scheduled to run on the network during May 2011.

MTV notified the press of their decision to pull the call-for-help commercials on May 5th, but did not inform Heroic Media until the following afternoon.

An MTV sales representative who notified Heroic Media’s advertising agency of the decision indicated that MTV President, Stephen Friedman, made the decision.

According to the sales representative, MTV, “Was in the works with doing a partnership with Planned Parenthood and different opportunities for PSA’s when he decided that he did not want to run Heroic Media on MTV.”

Last month, MTV partnered with Planned Parenthood on a promotion called “Get Yourself Tested,” which was promoted on both MTV and Planned Parenthood’s websites.

Planned Parenthood reported performing 332,278 abortions in the United States in 2009. On their website, MTV has listed Planned Parenthood as an adoption referral resource. Planned Parenthood made 977 adoption referrals in 2009.

The newly ‘banned’ commercial, which has been running on MTV since May of 2010 is called “We Can Help” and features a young woman struggling with an unexpected pregnancy. The script follows:

Young Woman: I’m pregnant.
Adult Woman: It happens.
Young Woman: I’m afraid.
Adult Woman: That’s normal.
Young Woman: I’m worried, My boyfriend’s scared, my parents are mad.
Adult Woman: Get a grip people. You’re not alone. We can help.

Graphics:
Text PREGNANT to 95495
877-877-9927
Logo: Heroic Media

Jeannie Kedas, Senior Vice President MTV Networks, issued the following official statement to Heroic Media seven days after giving it to the press, “Upon further review, it was hard for us to separate some of the recent tactics of the organization behind the ads themselves, so we have opted to not accept them for air at this time.”

Heroic Media has asked MTV to reconsider this decision and allow Heroic Media and other organizations to make women aware of hopeful alternatives to abortion.

Heroic Media is a faith-based non-profit that reduces abortion by creating a culture of life through television, billboard and internet advertising which connect women in crisis with life-affirming pregnancy centers. In communities where Heroic Media’s commercials have run consistently, abortions have dropped by as much as 20%.

To view the TV spot go to: www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfu3ZebO4HM

“For Heaven’s sake, don’t let God get in the way of a good story!” – GCB author Kim Gatlin

The ABC network is currently working on a pilot for a prime-time program called “Good Christian B-tches.”

It’s a Christian-bashing version of ABC’s current “Desperate Housewives.” The show centers on a recently divorced mother of two who moves back to the affluent neighborhood where she grew up to find herself in the whirling midst of gossip, Botox and fraud.

Disney-owned ABC has no reservations about creating hate speech against Christians, but you can be sure they would never consider a show called “Good Muslim B-tches” or “Good Jewish B-tches.”

With a title like “Good Christian B-tches,” you can imagine what kind of show it will be. Even if they change the title, the content will still mock people of faith.

TAKE ACTION 

Sign a petition to ABC and parent company Disney to drop all plans to air the anti-Christian program “Good Christian B-tches.”

We’ll add your petition to thousands of other voices in also urging advertisers to place it on their “do not advertise” list and consider pulling all ads from the ABC network in protest of this Anti-Christian bigotry.

Please let your local ABC station know that you will pressure local advertisers to pull their advertising business from the show and station, should it choose to air the program. You can find your local station’s contact information here.

Recently, homosexual humor during family hour reached a new low. On the ABC sitcom, Modern Family, one of the homosexual characters, Cam, directs a middle school musical. Here’s what he says:

This production was a joke until I introduced these children to the musical theater greats: Bernstein, Sondheim. Years from now some of these kids will still be talking about the way I sondheimized them.

In the twisted world of Hollywoood and homosexual activism, a play on the word sodomy is hilarious — particularly if it involves children.

For more on Hollywood’s worship of all things deviant, watch this short excerpt from the February’s Writers Guild Awards:

A week ago, the Chicago Tribune celebrated — again — the passage of the civil union bill as well as Obama’s decision to order the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

On Feb. 23, 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that President Barack Obama has divined that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional and has ordered the Justice Department (DOJ) to cease defending it. President Obama ordered the DOJ to stop defending DOMA in court even though the DOJ is specifically charged with the responsibility of defending federal laws.

However did DOMA’s unconstitutionality escape the notice of the 85 senators and 342 representatives who voted for it in 1996? And however did its unconstitutionality escape the notice of the man who signed it into law: President Bill Clinton, attorney and Rhodes Scholar?

The intellectual vacuity of the Tribune’s position is best illustrated in the claim that “the sky didn’t fall” following the passage of the civil union bill. What they mean is that Illinois has seen no cultural cataclysm since the bill was signed into law. The Tribune? wins this sophistical skirmish: I will concede that the bill that was signed into law six weeks ago and doesn’t take effect until June has not resulted in climatic catastrophe.

It has, however, darkened the sky for Jim Walder, a bed and breakfast owner in Paxton, Illinois who is being sued by a homosexual couple for not renting his facility to them for their civil union and reception. (Read more about this HERE.) And it seriously threatens the religious liberty of Christian organizations that seek to live out the tenets of their faith. (Read more about this HERE.)

But most of the cultural damage will not be seen for years to come. Any thinking person understands that cultural change rarely happens instantaneously. For example, Stanley Kurtz has documented the destructive impact same-sex “marriage” has had on heterosexual marriage in Scandinavia — changes that did not appear in a period of weeks or even months.

The Tribune editorial board continues its assault on marriage without ever feeling the need to address the fundamental and fundamentally flawed analogy upon which the entire homosexuality-affirming movement, including the effort to radically transform marriage and family, is built. The entire house of cards is built on a specious comparison of race to homosexuality, and yet, I cannot recall reading a single editorial defending with evidence the ways in which race and homosexuality are ontologically analogous or equivalent.

I also can’t recall the Tribune editorial board wrestling intellectually with the fundamental question that Princeton Law Professor Robert George recently debated with homosexual journalist Kenji Yoshino, which is: What is marriage?

Earlier this week I wrote an article about how the Main Stream Media (MSM) snubbed a well publicized press conference with over 40 African-American religious and political leaders who gathered “to decry the misrepresentation of King’s legacy and the noble civil rights cause.”

IFI wants to share with our readers (and as many people as possible) video segments from each speaker who attended the press conference. Supporters of natural marriage and Judeo-Christian morality will be tremendously encouraged watching and listening to these short video clips. Please share them with your friends, children, grandchildren and neighbors.

In this article, IFI is making another six segments available. We hope to finish editing the balance (an additional 7 speakers) and make them available next week.

Below is a short quote from each of the speakers. Click on the link to watch the Youtube video clip:

“[Issues] that require referendum, where there should be public debate, cannot be slipped in and become law through ‘lame duck’ politicians who do not want to righteously represent the districts that have elected them to take our concerns to the General Assembly…”

~Apostle Stephen A. Garner, Rivers of Living Water Ministries

Click HERE to watch Apostle Garner’s video segment.

“It is no secret, that any and every group that claims to fight for Civil Rights has used Dr. King and black suffrage as their poster child for change. In some sad instances, blacks have allowed themselves and our struggle to be prostituted by these political operatives.”

~Rev. Isaac Hayes, Former Congressional Candidate

Click HERE to watch Rev. Hayes’ video segment.

“I am here to challenge the church to stand up for what it says it believes. It is time that we become outside agitators again. It is time that we become disturbers of the peace. It is time that church stand up and be the church.”

~Dr. Eric Wallace, Publisher & Editor in Chief, Freedom’s Journal Magazine
President, Wallace Multimedia Group LLC

Click HERE to watch Dr. Wallace’s video segment.

“I am appalled at each and every one of our government officials who voted for this bill (same-sex ‘civil unions’)… Our government was founded on Christian principles, and those of us who are Christians are supposed to take a stand and speak out…”

~Mildred Richardson, Executive Director, South Haven Pregnancy Center

Click HERE to watch Mrs. Richardson’s video segment.

“Instead of focusing on the ‘three R’s,’ reading, writing and arithmetic, [school administrators] are consumed with extra-circular activity such as the Day of Silence, building sex-orientated high schools, or reading non-conformative gender role story books to our first graders. Books like King and King, where it depicts two little boys kissing on the cover. Now I ask you, how does that type of activity propel and prepare our future generation for what is waiting for them when they step out?”

~Kathy Barnette, Professor of Finance, Conference Speaker, Writer (TrueChristianLiving.com), and mother.

Click HERE to watch Mrs. Barnette’s video segment.

“I am sadden and outraged at the passage of the ‘civil unions’ bill. It grossly misuses the civil rights legacy, and it misuses it for a political agenda that is built upon destroying the family… I am blessed and honored to be here today among friends who refuse to stay silent… It is about building strong families so that we can build a better tomorrow. And that basis is built on marriage between a man and a woman…”

~Cedra Crenshaw
Professional Accountant, former candidate for Illinois State Senate and mother.

Click HERE to watch Mrs. Crenshaw’s video segment.

Please help us get this information out far and wide. While most of Chicago’s Media outlets ignored our press conference and our message, we can circumvent these gatekeepers by using today’s technology to spread the truth!

Click HERE TO SUPPORT Illinois Family Institute. 
As little as $60 goes a long way toward protecting your values in Illinois!
Sign up as an IFI Ministry Partner for just $60/year, which is just $5 per month.