…to attend the Values Voter Summit: 2008.  Join thousands of others from around the country who are working to defend life, marriage, and religious freedom.  Hear our leaders discuss the future of the family and its role in society.

The Values Voter Summit is sponsored by FRCAction, Focus on the Family Action, the Alliance Defense Fund, American Values, and the High Impact Leadership Coalition.  To learn more, visit the Values Voter Summit website.  You can also watch a video of highlights from last year.

And, if you hurry, you can get an early bird discount.  No, I mean really hurry - you have until May 15 to save $25!  If you are serious about making an impact for the family, register to attend this event today!  You will not be disappointed.

A story arising out of Charles Town, WV last week is worth keeping a close eye on.  As reported in The Journal, the Charles Town City Council decided to replace the “decades-long tradition of reciting the Lord’s prayer” with a moment of silence to begin their meetings from now on.

The decision was made, the story notes, after the City Council’s attorney [incorrectly/incompletely] informed them of potential legal liability if the tradition continued.  Reports Edward Marshall of The Journal:

Councilwoman Ann Paonessa, one of the council members who voted for the moment of silent prayer, said it seemed to her that the practice of reciting the Lord’s prayer presented some real legal problems and exposed the city to liability.

. . .

Councilwoman Schmitt, another council member who voted to institute the silent prayer, said her decision was based on legal advice from the city’s attorney.

“Basically we’re at risk of legal action, being sued, if we continue using the Lord’s prayer based on court cases that were cited,” Schmitt said.

So, how did this all get started?

The issue arose after Brown acknowledged last month that there were legal issues regarding the recitation of the prayer after resident Rich Schaffer wrote to Mayor Peggy Smith to tell her he felt offended by the use of the spoken prayer. Schaffer , who is Jewish, previously told The Journal he never had any intention of suing the city. He said he has been attending council meetings because of his concerns about the proposed demolition of a house in the town’s historic district by a local Baptist church.

If you, or someone you know, is familiar with the situation in Charles Town - either the intimidation to remove prayer, or the issue of the Baptist church’s land use rights - the Family Policy Council of West Virginia would like to know more about the situation.  Either leave a comment below or send us a message through our website, www.familypolicywv.com.

A story out of Canada ought to frighten - as my father is fond of saying, the “bejeebers out of” - every Christian ministry (Church or lay) in West Virginia.  This quote gives the gist of what has happened:

Christian Horizons is an evangelical ministry in Ontario that has cared for more than 1,400 people with developmental disabilities in 180 group homes. The group requires all employees to sign a contract agreeing to abstain from all sexual immorality, including homosexuality. When Christian Horizons fired a female employee who became involved with another woman, she complained to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which fined the ministry $23,000 and two years back pay.

What is the purpose of “Christan Horizons?”  As they define it on their website:

Christian Horizons is a non-profit, Christian charitable organization. We seek to reach out with supports and friendship to persons who have exceptional needs. Our purpose is to contribute to the exceptional person’s quality of life by addressing his/her spiritual, emotional, intellectual, social and physical needs. We serve in a manner that considers each person’s intrinsic value as loved by God and bearing His image

Here is a nonprofit ministry that is working with people who have significant disabilities, seeking to treat their physical, emotional, intellectual, social, and….gasp….spiritual needs, guided by their Judeo-Christian worldview.

Opposed, apparently, to this ministry is the Canadian government. One would guess that, on some level, the Canadian government appreciates the impact that this ministry has had upon the well-being of the many charges in Christian Horizons’ care, yet it clearly balks when the ministry dares to suppose that, in addition to the physical, emotional, etc., needs their severely disabled patients possess, there is also a spiritual component that must be addressed.

And yet, the spiritual component to this story nearly pales when compared to the legal implications.  Certainly, there is a religious liberty argument to be made.  No one - corporate or individual - should be punished for doing anything more than abiding by their religious worldview.  Clearly, that has happened here.

However, consider the broader corporate and societal implications of Canada’s overreach.  Effectively, the Canadian government has inserted itself into the board room of Christian Horizons, defied a majority of the organizations governance and financial supporters, and imposed upon this business restrictions antagonistic to the stated mission and purpose of the organization.

In effect, the Canadian government has intolerably said that it will not tolerate the intolerance of Christian Horizons and that it must tolerate, corporate principles of tolerance, even though such coerced toleration cannot be tolerated by an otherwise tolerant religion, in order to be legally defined as “tolerant.”

Allow me to translate myself: the Canadian government has chosen to pick and choose who is, and who is not, tolerant.  In so doing, it has placed itself as the ultimate authority of law and morality over the lives of Canadians.

What will be next?  If the Canadian government can reach into the corporate board room, will they then insert themselves at the kitchen table and define family devotions as instances of “coerced indoctrination of intolerance?”  Will it fill the pew and censor the sermon for instances of intolerance?

We, as a society, are ill-served when government believes itself to be the end-all-be-all to what ails the world.  When government believes there is nothing greater then it, society does not benefit.  There must be something greater than government, or all our law is but the meaningless (though pithy) proposals of people.  It is empty and lacks any moral authority whatsoever.

But, when government recognizes that there is a law that is higher than itself, when it humbly accepts its duty to ensure some of the justice we lost in the Fall, when it turns to truly understand that righteousness and justice go hand-in-hand, then government can act with a submissive authority that does more than merely change laws.  It changes lives.

As Jonathan Edwards, Jr. said in his sermon to public servants in 1794, “The best and perhaps the only remedy for such [social] diseases, is a full belief of the divine universal providence, of the accountableness of all men to God for all their conduct, and of a future equal retribution.”

With the Canadian situation, we see a government entirely devoid of ultimate accountability, revealing that checks and balances are only as good as what they are checked and balanced against.

www.familypolicywv.com

“Devote yourselves to prayer, being watchful and thankful.” - Colossians 4:2

Today is the National Day of Prayer. I invite you to spend time today praying for our community, state, and national leaders.

God has seen fit to put you and I under the authority of government, asking us only to submit to their leadership, and support them in steadfast prayer.

Let your prayers be guided by the following:

• Thank God for the freedoms He provides to us through government.
• Pray for the protection of the lives of our government officials.
• Pray to encourage the marriages of those holding public office.
• Pray that our leaders will be encouraged to worship freely.
• Pray for our President, Senators, Congressman, and Congresswomen as they develop policies to guide this nation.
• Pray for our Governor, State Senators, Delegates, and local leaders as they lead our state.

To find a National Day of Prayer event near you, click here. To read President Bush’s proclamation, click here.

Join the Virtual National Day of Prayer celebration by leaving your prayer for our state and nation in the comment section below.

This blog has repeatedly told of the pattern of racism and profiteering that Planned Parenthood regularly engages in at the expense of our hard-earned tax dollars.

One of our ministry partners at The Family Policy Council of West Virginia is the Family Research Council (FRC). Our friends at FRC are organizing a petition to encourage President Bush to limit (or eliminate) the amount of our tax dollars that go to funding Planned Parenthood and other abortion-on-demand providers. The petition describes the regulatory construct as follows:

Regulatory changes promulgated under President Reagan clarified the law that Title X recipients may not refer for abortion or combine family planning services with abortion services. These regulations were defended by President George H.W. Bush and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Rust v. Sullivan (500 U.S. 173) in 1991. Unfortunately, by the time they were being enforced, President Clinton took office and rescinded these pro-life regulations. He then implemented statutorily unsupported regulations that require recipients of Title X funding to refer for abortion. Moreover, these regulations allow the collocation of abortion clinics with their affiliated Title X family planning clinics - in some cases utilizing the same waiting rooms, staff and facilities. More than a minimal economic separation between abortion providers and family planning clinics is warranted.

You can find the rest of the petition here and we encourage you to sign it. (Note: The petition must be signed no later than May 7.)

No one should be permitted to determine whether one life is more valuable than another.  And, no one should be compelled - under color of law - to pay for that decision.

That is the question asked (and answered) by Maggie Gallagher, nationally syndicated columnist and head of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, in her column published on Townhall.com yesterday. I’ll tease and spoil you all at the same time with this penetrating quote from the end of Gallagher’s article:

But here’s what we’ve learned: Planned Parenthood is an organization staffed by people committed to the proposition that there is never a good reason not to have, support, fund or perform an abortion. In their own minds, their sacred mission to destroy human life puts them above the normal rules and even laws that any minimally decent person (whether pro-choice or pro-life) would recognize.

To bring this home, West Virginia is guilty of aiding to the coffers of Planned Parenthood and other abortion on demand providers. While the Federal government is underwriting the costs of Planned Parenthood to the tune of $330+ million of our tax dollars every year, West Virginia taxpayers are being compelled to fund abortion and related services in excess of $300K every year.

What is more, in this most recent legislative session, more than 60 bills were introduced on the issue of abortion. Assuming we are a 50/50 state on the question of life (and I don’t believe that we are), then one would expect at least some of those bills to advance. But, none - as in, zero, zilch, nada, bupkis - moved from their point of introduction.

Our leaders must be reminded that the family - including the pre-born - is the first priority, not an afterthought. To not even debate or discuss these bills leave lives hanging in the balance - literally!

For more, download this month’s newsletter, “Engage,” from our website.

….that the WV Legislature dodged a bullet by refusing to pass extra-constitutional protections for “sexual orientation.”

The Center for Law and Religious Freedom said on its blog last week that some within the radical homosexual agenda are advocating the removal of a religious organization’s tax exempt status if the organization - even if acting in concert with its bylaws and core convictions - “discriminated” on the basis of one’s sexual orientation.

Concludes the CLRF:

This is why the pending cases pitting religious associational freedom against certain nondiscrimination rules are so important. If these cases are decided correctly, there will be clearer constitutional protection from those that want to punish religious groups for holding traditional views on human sexuality.

Agreed.

The Charleston Daily Mail reports today that the owner (a non-resident of WV) of “Southern Xposure,” a sexually oriented business widely advertised along West Virginia’s interstate system, has purchased a strip club in downtown Charleston.

While this would normally be ho-hum news, what is interesting about the report is the following:

He [Mayor Danny Jones] said grandfather laws allow the club to run. Because the strip club at that location precedes the zoning laws that outlaw such clubs in the city, the club can remain.

Did you catch that? Today, it is virtually impossible for a strip club to open in downtown Charleston, WV. Zoning laws have effectively prevented new adult businesses from operating. While we applaud the application of these laws as to new sexually oriented businesses, this demonstrates precisely why zoning is insufficient to fully protect the health, safety, and welfare of our cities.

West Virginia currently has exactly 3 laws on the books regarding strip clubs. Actually, it is more like 2, since there is a variance only by degree.

First, West Virginia regulates the liquor license of these businesses. Strip clubs are required to apply for and obtain a liquor license in order to operate and distribute alcohol during the business. This license carries a low-annual fee to be paid by the proprietor, but does little more than give something akin to a business license.

Second (and third), current West Virginia law kicks any other regulation of this industry to the local level. That is, it provides that county commissions and city councils are permitted to zone their area of jurisdiction appropriately, keeping these types of businesses away from churches, schools, or other areas desirous of protection.

That’s it.

During the 2008 legislative session, The Family Policy Council of WV worked with Senators to introduce S.B. 695, The West Virginia Community Defense Act (WVCDA). The WVCDA would have made a significant impact in protecting our communities from the secondary affects of sexually oriented businesses (including strip clubs and other adult businesses).

Under the WVCDA, the time, place, and manner under which sexually oriented businesses operated. By requiring a “buffer zone” between patrons and dancers, the WVCDA would have done much to protect the employees of these establishments - who report some level of abuse (links to PDF. scroll to p. 7 for data) on a routine basis.

It would have regulated the hours of operation. Currently, strip clubs (and other adult businesses) can operate in West Virginia 24/7. Under the WVCDA, sexually oriented businesses would have been forced to shut down during the peak crime hours of midnight to six A.M. This regulation would do much in and of itself to prevent the myriad reported cases of crimes surrounding these establishments from occurring.

In short, the WVCDA would do much to regulate these undesirable businesses (usually operated by out-of-state owners) by focusing more on the secondary affects such businesses have upon the community (increased crime, property blight, spread of disease, etc.) and less on the activity behind blacked out windows.

Without the WVCDA, sexually oriented businesses throughout WV will be permitted to operate in spite of restrictive zoning ordinances because of “grandfathering” and other loopholes.

Encourage the Delegate and Senator receiving your vote: regulate the secondary effects sexually oriented businesses force upon West Virginia communities in 2009 by passing the WVCDA.

A report out on tax day (available at our website) suggests that American taxpayers are paying about $112 billion annually (more than $1 trillion per decade) because of family fragmentation.

What is more, West Virginians are paying the associated costs of divorce and unwed pregnancies to the tune of $231 million annually.  The report makes one thing abundantly clear:  the issue of marriage is no longer simply a social concern; it is definitively a legitimate concern for the taxpayer.

In reading through the report, what has been interesting to see is how many times the authors state that their estimates are “cautious,” meaning, it is likely that the report underestimates the actual cost to our state an nation.  While the economists authoring this report are clearly trying to make an economic point (that marriage is an economic institution the strength of which will affect the rest of the economy), the authors use social studies to prove their fiscal point.  The thrust of those social studies suggest that a strong marriage between a man and a woman for life results in a greater potential for wealth, raises healthier kids, keeps children from crime/drugs, and is the locus for a broad amount of philanthropy.

In short, this study makes the case that our leaders ought to make the family - and the marriages at the center of them - the very first priority, not an afterthought.  Marriage, it would appear, is not simply a matter for moralists or churches.  It is plainly a legitimate taxpayer concern, one that our leaders should endeavor to encourage and fortify with their leadership.

The war cry for West Virginia politicians has been the creation of jobs.  While laudable, perhaps our leaders would be well-served to do all in their power to encourage and strengthen marriages.  For the good of our families.  For the good of our economy.

Yesterday, the Washington Times featured an article on the faith of presidential hopeful, Sen. John McCain.  The thrust of the story is that, while Sen. McCain maintains a personal, religious faith, he is not apt to broadcast his beliefs publicly.

The story quoted from Prof. Wilfred McClay, a professor of humanities at the University of Tennessee at Chatanooga.  The learned professor concluded that it is unlikely that opponents in this presidential election will use religion as a “wedge issue,” attempting to discredit the other’s credibility by calling into question the candidate’s moral underpinnings.  Prof. McClay’s quote ended the article, “We may see a very religion-free election as a result.”

Should our elections be, “religion-free?”

While it is certainly true that our constitution expressly says that, “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office,” (Article VI, Sec. 3) one’s religion is of vital importance and rightly ought to be examined.

The electorate should not compel a candidate to pass a written theological examination; but, what ought to be as open as a candidate’s bookkeeping is what defines their worldview.  For, an understanding of one’s worldview will reveal much about their political philosophy.

Most social issues addressed by our political leadership must stem from a moral base.  In fact, what is law, but a codification of morality?  Thus, the question is not whether or not we ought to legislate morality, it is a question of whose morality will be legislated.

During this election cycle - nationally and locally - we urge those with the power of the vote, to carefully consider a candidate’s worldview.  Test the candidates worldview, as much as you are able, to determine whether it is in line with your convictions.  If it is, cast your vote.  But, where your worldview clashes with the worldview of a candidate for public office, pause to consider the effect of your vote.

To be sure, elections - like the governance that follows - will be anything but, “religion-free.”