U.S. Church Sermons Being 'Monitored' for Anti-Homosexual Views

http://www.LifeSiteNews.com ^ | July 30, 2004

[cpforlife.org]

U.S. Church Sermons Being 'Monitored' for Anti-Homosexual Views

American Civil Liberties Union, Planned Parenthood and the National Education Association behind harrasment

WASHINGTON, July 30, 2004 (http://www.LifeSiteNews.com) -The head of the Christian Seniors Association (CSA) asked U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft to investigate reported harassment of churches in Kansas and Missouri.

CSA Executive Director James Lafferty said a report by the Associated Press and the website of a group calling itself The Mainstream Coalition says it has over 100 members who "monitor" sermons and worship at targeted churches.

Lafferty said he has delivered letters to Attorney General Ashcroft and to the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division asking that federal agents be dispatched to Kansas and Missouri to observe the coalition's activities against churches there.

"Churches in those states are being strong-armed and pushed around because of their beliefs," said Lafferty in a press release. "We want those religious citizens to get the protection they are promised in the Constitution. It is time somebody pushed back at the liberal bullies."

"This is harassment, pure and simple," he said. "Churches in Kansas and Missouri which oppose homosexual marriage go to the top of the coalition's target list for some 'monitoring.'"

The Mainstream Coalition calls itself a political watchdog, saying they monitor sermons for evidence of pastors endorsing specific political candidates -- which is against the law according to the Internal Revenue Service. In fact, the Mainstream Coalition's website reveals its leftist agenda of pro-abortion support, homosexual activism, and anti-prayer in schools, among others. Many of the members of the Mainstream Coalition are current or former members of the American Civil Liberties Union, Planned Parenthood and the National Education Association.

"They don't want to monitor anything; they are there to intimidate pastors and worshippers." Lafferty said. "Christians shouldn't be forced to surrender any of their rights as citizens including the right to public worship and the right to express sincerely-held religious beliefs."

Visit the Mainstream Coalition web-site: http://www.mainstreamcoalition.com/

[Salman]

As a pastor of a Church here in Southern California, I would only pray that they would come and monitor my sermons.

Quite so. "Monitoring" a sermon, despite the menacing tone, only means showing up to listen.

[ItsOurTimeNow]

- Homosexual Agenda Ping -

Not directly related to the Queer Jihad, but it falls along the same lines of rampant intolerance towards anything Christian and right-wing/conservative.

I look forward to the day when I conduct my church's Youth Ministry from inside a prison cell! Bring it on, heathens!

Is there a "Christian Persecution PING List" around here?

If not, I'll start one.

[AdequateMan]

The real crux of the issue is that since regulation of marriage is not a power granted by the Constitution to the Federal Government, it belongs to the several States, or to the people. So, in order for the Federal government to regulate it, it must first grant itself that authority in the Constitution. Marriage is otherwise a state issue, and has been treated that way in most cases except, for example, Utah's being told to ditch the polygamy prior to statehood. See Amendment 10 for support for this argument. Really, what you're also saying is that if the Constitution does not expressly imply that you have a right to gay marriage, that it must be illegal. (remember that we were talking only of Federal law). This is fallacious, as demonstrated by the Ninth amendment to the Constitution, which reads: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. What this is saying is that just because the founding fathers decided to enumerate or list some of the rights that the government recognized, that that list cannot be used as evidence of the lack of some other right not listed. So to legalize it would take a change in law at the state level, whereas to make it illegal would take an amendment to the Constitution.

[nickcarraway]

Hmmm, Utah was told to ditch polygamy, and over one hundred years later polygamy still isn't legal.

The problem with marriage and state rights is it isn't an issue that can be contained to a state, unlike most issues. A person can know that a certain behavior is against the law in one state, and not in another state. But a person can't be married in one state, then cross the border into another state and not be married. A few states will be able to force their laws onto a lot of other states. And this issue is going to have a severe impact on our economic freedom, because it is going to force multi-state companies to be held hostage by maybe even one state. It's already happening. Because the mayor of San Francisco decided to do something he had no authority to do by state law, my county is using our tax money to fund these illegal marriages. According to your plan, because of something the Massachusetts Supreme Court dreams up one day, a guy in Alabama may see his taxes go up, and his pay go down. And you call that states rights and liberty? Thanks.