'No opt-out' for church adoption

When is Tolerance Intolerance

Now that the crowd denying any moral views is in power, there is an emphasis on tolerating all those whom they view as acceptable and denying the right to all others who have contrary beliefs. They call this Tolerance. I call it Hypocrisy. Lets be real here merely because most of the society has decided that they prefer to not have a formal religion and choose secularism that is a moral view that they are then trying to impost on the rest of the country.

The cardinal said Catholic adoption agencies would have to close

The Catholic Church is not expected to win an exemption from new anti-discrimination laws, following the row over adoption by gay couples.

Its agencies are demanding an opt-out, so that they are not required to place children with homosexuals.

Reports that Tony Blair has "caved in" to Cabinet members who are against an exemption have been described as "ridiculous" by Downing Street.

But No 10 has suggested agencies may be allowed time to adapt or close.

Tony Blair has met Labour MPs over the issue and an announcement is expected next week.

'Strong views'

The Equality Act, due to come into effect in England, Wales and Scotland in April, outlaws discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on the basis of sexual orientation.

Catholic leaders say its teachings prevent its agencies placing children with homosexuals and they will close if bound by the rules.

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the leader of Catholics in England and Wales, has denied claims that he is using "blackmail".

The Church of England has backed the Catholic Church in its attempts.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, have written to Tony Blair to argue that "rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well-meaning".

Constitutional Affairs Minister Harriet Harman, the latest minister to voice an opinion on the issue, has said there was no scope for exemptions to the legislation.

"We will stay true to our commitment in tackling sexual discrimination in terms of sexual orientation," she told the New Statesman magazine.

"You can either be against discrimination or you can allow for it. You can't be a little bit against discrimination."

Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly, who is a Catholic, is reported to be pushing for an exemption.

But Labour MP Stephen Pound, who is also Catholic, does not support a religious exemption and believes the adoption row has put Ms Kelly in a difficult decision.

"We seem to be living in a world where people who have strongly held views are somehow derided for that," he told the BBC.

"In Ruth's case there is demonstrably a conflict. Is it right for us to expect someone to abandon everything they believe in because of the prevailing majority view? Does she abandon her ambition or her faith?"

The National Secular Society said that allowing an exemption for the Church would open the "floodgates for a never-ending series of demands".

The BBC's Have Your Say

S.1 SEC. 220 - DISCLOSURE OF PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE GRASSROOTS LOBBYING

Call me a pessimist But I really wonder what the reason for wanting to control and have grassroots lobbying efforts register with the House and Senate?

I suspect that this will end up in court and be struck down as breaking the freedom of speech, but its a pretty good try. You have give the democrats credit. They must have been working on these for Years!!!!! the biggest problem that they have is that they wrote this before their were blogs and people getting out information on the Internet. Now while the big organizations are important they are less so and so the democrats have less of an impact.

SEC. 220. DISCLOSURE OF PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE GRASSROOTS LOBBYING.

(a) Definitions- Section 3 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1602) is amended--

(1) in paragraph (7), by adding at the end of the following: `Lobbying activities include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, but do not include grassroots lobbying.'; and

(2) by adding at the end of the following:

`(17) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING- The term `grassroots lobbying' means the voluntary efforts of members of the general public to communicate their own views on an issue to Federal officials or to encourage other members of the general public to do the same.

`(18) PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE GRASSROOTS LOBBYING-

`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying' means any paid attempt in support of lobbying contacts on behalf of a client to influence the general public or segments thereof to contact one or more covered legislative or executive branch officials (or Congress as a whole) to urge such officials (or Congress) to take specific action with respect to a matter described in section 3(8)(A), except that such term does not include any communications by an entity directed to its members, employees, officers, or shareholders.

`(B) PAID ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR SEGMENTS THEREOF- The term `paid attempt to influence the general public or segments thereof' does not include an attempt to influence directed at less than 500 members of the general public.

`(C) REGISTRANT- For purposes of this paragraph, a person or entity is a member of a registrant if the person or entity--

`(i) pays dues or makes a contribution of more than a nominal amount to the entity;

`(ii) makes a contribution of more than a nominal amount of time to the entity;

`(iii) is entitled to participate in the governance of the entity;

`(iv) is 1 of a limited number of honorary or life members of the entity; or

`(v) is an employee, officer, director or member of the entity.

`(19) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRM- The term `grassroots lobbying firm' means a person or entity that--

`(A) is retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients; and

`(B) receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $25,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period.'.

(b) Registration- Section 4(a) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1603(a)) is amended--

(1) in the flush matter at the end of paragraph (3)(A), by adding at the end the following: `For purposes of clauses (i) and (ii), the term `lobbying activities' shall not include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying.'; and

(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:

`(4) FILING BY GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRMS- Not later than 45 days after a grassroots lobbying firm first is retained by a client to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, such grassroots lobbying firm shall register with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.'.

(c) Separate Itemization of Paid Efforts To Stimulate Grassroots Lobbying- Section 5(b) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1604(b)) is amended--

(1) in paragraph (3), by--

(A) inserting after `total amount of all income' the following: `(including a separate good faith estimate of the total amount of income relating specifically to paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying and, within that amount, a good faith estimate of the total amount specifically relating to paid advertising)'; and

(B) inserting `or a grassroots lobbying firm' after `lobbying firm';

(2) in paragraph (4), by inserting after `total expenses' the following: `(including a good faith estimate of the total amount of expenses relating specifically to paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying and, within that total amount, a good faith estimate of the total amount specifically relating to paid advertising)'; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

`Subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (2) shall not apply with respect to reports relating to paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying activities.'.

(d) Good Faith Estimates and De Minimis Rules for Paid Efforts To Stimulate Grassroots Lobbying-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 5(c) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1604(c)) is amended to read as follows:

`(c) Estimates of Income or Expenses- For purposes of this section, the following shall apply:

`(1) Estimates of income or expenses shall be made as follows:

`(A) Estimates of amounts in excess of $10,0000 shall be rounded to the nearest $20,000.

`(B) In the event income or expenses do not exceed $10,000, the registrant shall include a statement that income or expenses totaled less than $10,000 for the reporting period.

`(2) Estimates of income or expenses relating specifically to paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying shall be made as follows:

`(A) Estimates of amounts in excess of $25,000 shall be rounded to the nearest $20,000.

`(B) In the event income or expenses do not exceed $25,000, the registrant shall include a statement that income or expenses totaled less than $25,000 for the reporting period.'.

(2) TAX REPORTING- Section 15 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1610) is amended--

(A) in subsection (a)--

(i) in paragraph (1), by striking `and' after the semicolon;

(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking the period and inserting `; and'; and

(iii) by adding at the end the following:

`(3) in lieu of using the definition of paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying in section 3(18), consider as paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying only those activities that are grassroots expenditures as defined in section 4911(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.'; and

(B) in subsection (b)--

(i) in paragraph (1), by striking `and' after the semicolon;

(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking the period and inserting `; and'; and

(iii) by adding at the end the following:

`(3) in lieu of using the definition of paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying in section 3(18), consider as paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying only those activities that are grassroots expenditures as defined in section 4911(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

US House backs stem cell research

The US House of Representatives has passed a bill backing embryonic stem cell research, marking a major challenge to President George W Bush.
The stem cell bill was among the top priorities for the Democrats, who took control of Congress last week, but Mr Bush has vowed to veto it. Advocates of stem cell research say it could lead to cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. Mr Bush says the research would destroy
human life in the name of science.

The Interesting thing about this is Embryonic Stem Cell research has never been illegal in the US. Federal Funding has been illegal for it.

If there were any likely possibility for the successful cure of Alzheimer’s or Parkinson's than the drug companies would be all for it, and get there own funding but the science is obviously not there. There are some other obvious difficulties with embryonic stem cells

• Its only success created tumor cell(cancer)
• If a cure "were" created then there are not nearly enough embryo's available
  There would be required to be a massive number of women who would have to donate eggs. Due to the complication rate and the biological effects of egg donation there are some moral issues just with that.
• There are other options that have always looked more promising.

We can thusly conclude that there is a social/ moral agenda at work here. That is no surprise but I wish that they would be honest.

With today's strong bipartisan vote, we now challenge President Bush to join
members from both sides of the aisle in supporting the hope of stem cell
research." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

The Hope of stemm cell research is that we can live forever, there is no hope in that everyone dies. Nancy needs to learn the essentials of life. There has been plenty of stem cell research going on. The democrats and the agenda bandwagon have talke as though the only stem cell research has been Embrionic to confuse people and make them think that The President is anti-progress. I would like them to come clean on that as well.

Hope is only found in Jesus Christ.

Reformed thought vs PCUSA - The Gospel according to Oprah

• The Gospel according to Oprah
• Jesus, the Bible and Homosexuality

Now I don't think that Oprah is the Anti-Christ nor are the homosexual activist in the PCUSA, but I do think that they are an anti-Christ. These are advocating a different Gospel than the one that Jesus the Christ taught and died for.

They are advocating one in which you do it yourself, now many homosexuals truly feel attracted to people of their own gender, this is largely from their environment, but this is no different than my wife being attracted to another man. That is called normal, what becomes wrong is to act or dwell on those emotions. Homosexuals only sin when they act on their emotions.

Now Oprah is just plain old "do it your self religion" and the the homosexual is just make Christianity nothing. The interesting part of this situation is that the PCUSA publishing is advocating both. When reading the studies they clearly believe that both Oprah is a spiritual person upon which we should look to for theology(does that make here a minister of sorts - I guess she will have to cut out her liberal political advocacy, well they get away with it anyway) and the Homosexual agenda. Both are Trojans trying to change the way the church thinks clearly an indication of the situation of the PCUSA.

The homosexual study clearly says people are allowed to disagree, but then says

Likewise, historical documentation should be accepted and not debated. Rogers is a recognized scholar and has done painstaking research. ....Jack Rogers shares his personal journey as a Christian, scholar, and minister in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). While he did not seek to be involved in advocating ordination of people who are homosexual, through his experiences and study he has come to this position.

So what they are saying really is disagree all you want but "we have the evidence that we are right and you can't challenge its accuracy" Pretty week arguments and what it really means is that they know in the back of their minds that they are biased(even though like all good liberals they think they are not) and try to suppress any real debate. What it really means is they don't like the idea of SIN, and the penalty for it.


So what do they mean when they say
Building on the Reformed tradition
I think they mean ripping the whole darn thing out and starting from a different road. A yellow brick road that leads to neverland, I think.

Maybe what they mean is we don't think that the reformers meant what you think it meant, what they really meant was.........
Now thats a truly relevant way to understand a modern day PCUSA. Maybe the PC means Politically Correct.

Should creation of hybrid embryos be allowed?

My wife suffers from both Parkinsons Disease, and Scoliosis of the spine, and although she carries on, she is pitiful to look at. I would do anything or support anybody who could help her or others like her, without involving morals from whatever source - please let these peolple who need help have their chance.

Leonard Lane, Northwood, United Kingdom

I think that this person should be commended for their heart and stricken for their ignorance, and lauded for their honesty, but they are still wrong. As the article and comments bring out is that the moral ground is rapidly disappearing as their is nothing to base morality in secular humanism.

Hybrid embryo work 'under threat'

Early embryos yield stem cells

UK scientists planning to mix human and animal cells in order to research cures for degenerative diseases fear their work will be halted.

They accuse the body that grants licences for embryo research, the HFEA, of bowing to government pressure if it fails to consider their applications.

Ministers proposed outlawing such work after unfavourable public opinion.

PM Tony Blair said any new law would have "flexibility" to support scientific research that helped people.

He said there were "difficult" issues surrounding creating the embryos, which are more than 99% human but have a small animal component.

He added: "I'm sure that research that's really going to save lives and improve the quality of life will be able to go forward."

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority is to discuss if two research requests come under its remit.

The creation of hybrid human-animal embryos was first suggested as a way of addressing the shortage of human eggs available for research.

But the HFEA says it is unresolved whether this type of controversial work is permissible under existing laws - or even whether it falls under the HFEA's jurisdiction to grant a licence.

Opponents say the work tampers with nature and is unethical.

The researchers have called for greater understanding of what they are trying to achieve.

Public opposition

The public was consulted on hybrid embryo work among other issues for an overhaul of outdated laws on fertility treatments and embryo research.

Ministers felt the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 needed to be updated as science has moved on significantly.

The new white paper says scientists will be able to push forward research in some areas, such as altering the genetic structure of cells that make embryos.

But government proposes prohibiting them from making human-animal hybrids or so-called "chimeras" - where genetic material is taken from humans and put into a host animal egg.

That is then allowed to grow to a very early embryo stage in the lab as a source of stem cells for research.

'Hybrids'

Scientists are hopeful that studies on stem cells - immature cells that can become many types of tissue - could lead to greater understanding and even a cure for many diseases, including Alzheimer's.

They say using human-animal mixes rather than human eggs to get the stem cells makes sense because human eggs are in short supply, plus the process is less cumbersome and yields better results.

Professor Chris Shaw from Kings College London, along with his colleague Dr Stephen Minger, has applied for a licence for stem cell work on Motor Neurone Disease.

We hope that the HFEA has found this is one hurdle too many and they are not prepared to jump over it Josephine Quintavalle of CORE ethics

He said: "To shut this down at the moment is a real affront to patients. We do not have a single drug that makes a difference to the disease course."

Dr Minger, who hopes to look at the genetic causes of conditions like Parkinson's disease, said he had been told that the HFEA was unlikely to grant his application.

A second team of scientists, led by Professor Lyle Armstrong at Newcastle University, has applied to research how different tissues grow in the body.

Dr Evan Harris MP, Liberal Democrat member of the Science and Technology Select Committee, warned there would be fierce opposition from scientists and parliamentarians to any draft bill which included such a ban.

Scientific progress

An HFEA spokesman said: "We need to decide whether the law prohibits this research, whether it falls under our remit at all, and then we can look at whether we have a fundamental view on this type of research.

"We have a duty to consider any application put before us."

If the HFEA decides it is outside its remit, the scientists will not legally need a licence to continue with their work.

A spokesman for the Department of Health stressed that the new law, which still needs to be debated in Parliament, would contain a clause allowing for the possibility that this type of work should be permitted in the future.

Josephine Quintavalle, of CORE ethics, said: "This is creating an animal-human hybrid and that has to be acknowledged as something that does not meet with approval.

"We hope that the HFEA has found this is one hurdle too many and they are not prepared to jump over it."