International
* US ANGLICANS REJECT GAY BISHOPS - Leaders
of the Episcopal Church in the US have agreed to halt the consecration of gay priests as
bishops to prevent a split in the Anglican Communion.
They reaffirmed disapproval of official prayers to bless same-sex
unions.
Many African Anglicans threatened to leave the worldwide Anglican
Communion after the ordination of the first openly gay bishop four years ago.
The US Church had until 30 September to respond to Anglican
leaders' calls that it define its position on the issue.
US bishops made the decision after a six-day meeting in New
Orleans.
The meeting was attended in part by the Archbishop of Canterbury,
Rowan Williams, who urged the Episcopal Church to make concessions for the sake of unity.
The Episcopal Church is the American wing of the Anglican
Communion, which has 77 million members worldwide.
The statement urged bishops to "exercise restraint by not
consenting to the consecration" of candidates whose lifestyle "challenged"
the wider church.
The agreement means that while the Church cannot stop dioceses
from selecting a gay candidate for bishop, it can refrain from approving those candidates,
says BBC religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott.
It will help defuse the crisis triggered by the US Church's
consecration of an openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson, in 2003, our correspondent says.
But traditionalists in the US are already making plans to set up
their own independent Church.
Conservative churchgoers believe active homosexuality is contrary
to the Anglican Communion's teachings, which are rooted in the Bible.
However, liberal Anglicans have argued that biblical teachings on
inclusion should take precedence.
The Episcopal bishops did reaffirm their commitment to the civil
rights of gay people and said they opposed any violence towards them or violation of their
dignity.
The meeting in New Orleans follows a summit of Anglican leaders in
Tanzania earlier in the year which gave the US Episcopal Church until 30 September to
define its position on the issue.
The leaders threatened that a failure to do so would leave their
relationship with the US branch of Anglicanism "damaged at best".
(BBC News, 27 Sept 2007) (to index)
* MAJOR LONDON ABORTION CONFERENCE TO PROMOTE
EVEN MORE ABORTION INTERNATIONALLY - Marie Stopes International is hosting a
conference in London in October to promote abortion internationally. One of the aims of
the Global Conference on Safe Abortion is to teach abortion advocates how to remove the
last legal barriers to unrestricted abortion on demand in Britain.
The website of Marie Stopes International says the conference's
aim is to "build consensus and momentum around international efforts to reduce the
unacceptable toll on women's health and lives caused by unsafe abortion." It is being
timed to coincide with the 40th anniversary of the United Kingdom's 1967 Abortion Act.
The conference, to be held October 23 and 24 at the Queen
Elizabeth II Conference Centre, offers a line-up of speakers from many of the world's
prominent abortion and population control organisations including Catholics for a Free
Choice, Amnesty International, International Planned Parenthood and the Guttmacher
Institute. Parliamentarians scheduled to speak include Gareth R. Thomas, MP for Harrow
West and Christine McCafferty, MP for Calder Valley.
One speaker is Stephanie Schlitt, the Reproductive Rights
Coordinator for the International Secretariat of Amnesty International, who oversaw the
world-wide orchestration of Amnesty's adoption of abortion as a "human right".
Schlitt will provide advice on policy and methodology for abortion campaigners on
transforming large organisations like Amnesty into abortion advocacy groups.
Marie Stopes International is part of a group of 13 abortion
promoting organisations that will use the conference and the occasion of the 40th
anniversary of the Abortion Act to pressure the British government to abolish the
requirement of two doctors for abortion.
The group, Voice for Choice, is a coalition of organisations
working with the All Party Parliamentary Pro-Choice and Sexual Health Group to pressure
the Labour government to increase abortion availability in Britain. Observers on both
sides of the debate agree that the majority Labour government is likely to pass such
amendments to the Act.
The group is lobbying the British government to have abortion be
available on demand with no reason or justification necessary and to allow abortions to be
committed by nurse practitioners.
Marie Stopes is an international abortion organisation that grew
directly out of the early 20th century eugenics movement. It works in 40 countries and in
the UK is the largest provider of abortion and contraception apart from the National
Health Service.
Marie Stopes, (1880-1958) a paleobotanist, was, like Planned
Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, a prominent campaigner for eugenics policies that
found their full expression in the Nazi mass murder programmes before and during World War
II.
In "Radiant Motherhood", Stopes called for the
"sterilization of those totally unfit for parenthood to be
made…compulsory." In "The Control of Parenthood" she said that
"utopia could be reached in my life time" if she had power to "legislate
compulsory sterilization" of the insane, "feebleminded",
"revolutionaries" and "half-castes." Following her death in 1958, a
large part of Stopes' personal fortune went to the Eugenics Society.
(LifeSite, 4 Sept 2007) (to index)
* SENATE SET TO VOTE ON HATE-CRIMES AMENDMENT -
The U.S. Senate is set to vote on two key amendments to a Defense spending bill, including
one that would enshrine homosexuality in federal law.
The hate-crimes amendment would create a new federal class of
crime based on "actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity," but
the underlying goal is to grant federal civil-rights status to homosexuality.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has introduced an alternative amendment
that would simply require a study of hate crimes.
Why is the amendment attached to a military spending bill? Sen.
Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., has tried many explanations. "The Defense Authorization Bill is
dealing with the challenges of terrorism," he said last week. "And the hate
crimes issue … we're talking about domestic terrorism."
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, called
that argument outrageous. "Again, we see this effort to try and link those who defend
traditional morality with those in the Middle East who are blowing people up," he
said on his weekly radio program. "This is outrageous. This legislation will
eventually lead to Christians, and the speech that would counter homosexuality, being
criminalized."
Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst for Focus on the Family
Action, said: "Senator Kennedy’s hate-crimes amendment doesn’t belong in
the Defense spending bill, and it doesn’t belong in law, period."
(Citizenlink, 26 Sept 2007) (to index)
* FOR MATURE AUDIENCES ONLY - Statistics show
that we retain a resounding 50 percent of what we see and hear. Typically such statistics
are used to develop or modify formal educational learning tools. However, this statistic
is just as true for informal, and in some cases inappropriate, behaviours through learning
apparatus such as the television.
As the scarlet thread of immorality continues to corrupt our
culture, the pervasive nature of indecent television programming is proving that the
effect of such content on our children is harmful to their development. Over the years,
broadcast television networks have developed many new television content rating systems
intended to help parents determine the appropriateness of television programming. But such
ratings do only that: define levels of appropriateness. They are not enough to protect
children from even the smallest amount of exposure to indecent and offensive material.
Helping our society to develop a greater toleration for the
“F-word,” the “S-word” or inappropriate behaviour, so that we can
justify the use of such language by prefacing it as suitable for mature audiences only,
does not help cultivate a moral society. Broadcasters have a responsibility to their
viewers which goes well beyond desensitizing them to sleazy programming.
Some leaders in Congress are working to protect our
children’s innocence and purity — something that is under heavy fire in our
morally decaying culture. In the 109th session, Congress authorized the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) to impose meaningful, punitive fines for indecent
broadcasts.
Shari Rendall, Concerned Women for America’s (CWA) Director
of Legislation and Public Policy, said, “Violence and inappropriate language have
reached epidemic proportions on television. A recent poll conducted by The Associated
Press shows that about 70 percent of people said there is too much violence on television.
Broadcast television needs to be held accountable for the programming that is being put on
the screen. The quality of television is no longer as ‘family oriented’ as it
once was. Today’s prime time television has become unsuitable for families and is
often against their values, making it impossible for families to watch programmes
together.”
“Broadcasters seem intent on making parents’ job of
protecting their children’s innocence nearly impossible,” said Wendy Wright,
President of CWA.
Exposing children to vulgar language and inappropriate images and
forcing parents to tolerate it is preposterous. Parents deserve every opportunity to
protect the innocence of their children. It is time for the standards of broadcast
television to be set by those with more at stake then financial costs and TV ratings.
(Concerned Women for America, 25 Sept 2007) (to index)
