There is a developing cultural divide occurring within the evangelical community over an unlikely subject: global warming.

On one side, we have Southern Baptist-in-name-only Al Gore touting the potential ruin of the planet in his film “An Inconvenient Truth.”  Joining with him, somewhat surprisingly, has been the upstart Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI), which has called for sweeping reform to combat global warming in what it terms a Bible-based response to the issue.

Curiously, the ECI, which includes 86 prominent church leaders, has linked with abortion-on-demand and population control organizations that are touting global warming as genuine science.

The ECI’s decision to join the global warming wars compelled two conservative evangelical think tanks — the Institute on Religion & Democracy and the Action Institute for the Study of Religion & Liberty — to suggest the ECI has been “exploited” by the abortion-rights community.  They note that this strange union could actually “give anti-Christian ideologies unmerited moral and theological cover.”

Indeed, it could.

On the other hand, a position from which I am writing, there are those who believe that, while the earth appears to have slightly warmed in recent years, there is legitimate question as to whether this has been caused by human activity or by natural cycles.

So, a group of evangelicals has united to counter the efforts of the ECI.  This group, the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance (ISA), is a gathering of scholars and pastors (yes, they can coexist) who believe that “evangelicals should be wary of the politicization and bad science of global warming alarmism.”

The problem is that when evangelicals jump on board with liberal groups that are advancing climate alarmism, the so-called major media is there to trumpet their action.  As such, when the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance’s released its “Call to Truth, Prudence and Protection of the Poor,” which contains a “detailed biblical and scientific response to the much-heralded Evangelical Climate Initiative,” it was virtually ignored by the media.

Another frequently ignored element in the global warming debate is the fact that so-called solutions to the problem will damage the American economy.

Bill Saunders, director of the Family Research Council’s Center for Human Life and Bioethics and Human Rights Council, recently wrote: “If the effects of global warming are real and, in the future, humans face hotter summers and higher sea levels, the solution is not restricting energy access and limiting economic growth. That is quite unlikely to solve the problem.  It is certain to lead to economic recession in developed countries, invariably keeping undeveloped countries in poverty as their growth is dependent on the strength of developed nations.”

So we must address any real climate changes with legitimate solutions that do not hinder economic development in our nation.  The world will certainly suffer if America is monetarily punished.

Nevertheless, the United Nations is touting global warming as an issue as problematic as terrorism.

This week, Sen. James Inhofe dismissed a U.N. meeting on climate change as “a brainwashing session,” proclaiming that “The idea that the science (on global warming) is settled is altogether wrong.”

He’ll certainly be pilloried by those who believe we should not question the facts of global warming.

I thank God that we have reasonable men like Sen. Inhofe (R-Okla.) who are willing to take a stand.

Finally, I think it’s interesting that, according to the NOAA National Climatic Data Center, the last two months in the continental U.S. have been cooler than average.

The organization reported: “The combination of a cooler-than-average September and October dropped the year-to-date national temperature from record warmest to third warmest for the January through October 2006 period. The record warmest January through October occurred in 1934.”

I imagine if the scientists of 1934 had the technology we enjoy today, they would have been predicting global warming in their era, as well.  The only problem would have been that their fellow scientists in the 1970s would be predicting a massive global freeze in the near future.  Of course, that didn’t happen.

In other words, cooler heads must prevail in this global warming debate, especially in the evangelical community.

Daily media stories are full of doom and gloom for Republicans.  If we are to believe these election accounts, the GOP is in an out-of-control downward spiral that cannot be fixed before the November 7 elections.

I don’t claim to be an election authority, but I’ve been around a long time and I have learned that the polls and the pundits aren’t always right   And I think the pollsters may be off target in terms of this election.

My primary reason for believing this is based in my relationship with the so-called “religious right,” or the old Moral Majority.

I don’t believe the polls accurately depict the preparedness of the conservative Christian community to vote.  Sure, I think the recent Foley scandal and other government indignities have discouraged some, but when you get down to brass tacks, these controversies don’t alter our core values.

Christians continue to want to elect those candidates that best reflect their biblical values and support the issues that have defined our movement since we swept Ronald Reagan into the Oval Office in 1980.  Our values have not changed.

As Gary Bauer, chairman of the Campaign for Working Families, says, “The right to life and traditional marriage are not wedge issues, they are winning issues.  Values issues are not distractions from the business of governing.  They are central to the survival of our republic.

If Christians were a little complacent about the approaching elections, I believe this week’s New Jersey Supreme Court ruling, that the state must tender rights of marriage to homosexual couples, has rejuvenated our constituency.

This ruling is a striking reminder that many of our nation’s jurists have jumped on the politically-correct bandwagon and are attempting to force their will on the people.  We simply must elect lawmakers—whether Democrat or Republican—who seek to protect traditional marriage and the unborn.

Our laws must not be determined based on social whims

I read with interest this week that Sen. Hillary Clinton said that her outlook on homosexual marriage “has certainly evolved.”

This gives Mrs. Clinton, who has previously said that she does not support same-sex marriage, a political out.  She can simply “evolve” into what she needs to be in order to recruit the voters she thinks she needs.

“Oops!  I evolved.”

When one’s core values are swinging in the wind, they’re certainly not worth a whole lot.

I don’t believe the conservative Christian community—whose core values are deeply rooted in the Bible—are ready to allow fickle politicians to determine that traditional marriage is suddenly obsolete.

So that brings us to the November elections and the key question of the day: Will the “values voters” show up at the polls?

It is imperative that we do.

I am urging Christians across this nation to study the candidates and the issues and then go to the polls to vote for those men and women that best reflect our values.

This election is far from over, even though many pundits want us to believe it is.

Let’s get out and vote.  In the seven states where there are marriage protection amendments on the ballots—Arizona, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin—I urge Christians to make their voices heard.

Pastors, this Sunday, encourage all of your parishioners to be at the polls on November 7 to accomplish their Christian responsibility.  Let’s prove that the “religious right” continues to be a very significant voting bloc.

At last, after weeks of flirting with the idea of broadcasting a portion of a Madonna concert in which she appears on a giant cross wearing a crown of thorns, NBC has reportedly decided not to broadcast that portion of the song “Live to Tell.”

While I’m pleased that NBC ultimately made the right decision not to offend millions of Christians by editing out the offensive footage in “Madonna: The Confessions Tour — Live From London”, scheduled to air November 22, this is really a small victory.

You see, the broadcast and cable networks continue to assault the character of Jesus Christ on a regular basis.

Why?  Because evangelical Christians and conservative Catholics are seen as pariahs. Therefore, the subject of our faith — Jesus Christ — should be mocked.

Maybe you think I’m overstating the problem.

Well, take a look.

On Comedy Central’s “South Park,” Jesus is a goofy cable access talk show host.  In one recent episode, the network permitted the series to depict Jesus defecating on President Bush and the American flag, while an image of Mohammed was edited out.

After feeling the heat of criticism, Comedy Central said it would continue to “push” their content “right to the edge.”  But apparently only if the religious mockery is not about Mohammed.

Last year, NBC’s “The Book of Daniel” presented Jesus as a zoned-out hippie who periodically showed up to banter with a pill-popping minister.

Further, the networks fawned all over “The da Vinci Code” novel and film — which portray Jesus in ways that totally counter the Bible — while routinely touting Islam as a religion of peace.

A couple of years ago, then-host of ABC’s “Nightline” Ted Koppel described as “awesome, beautiful, and harmonizing annual gathering” the Islamic pilgrimage known as the Hajj.

In a November 2003 column, L. Brent Bozell III, president of the Media Research Center, noting how ABC “Search for Jesus” was far less complimentary of Christianity, stated: “To ABC, Islam is holy.  But Christianity is easily pierced as a fraud, an oppressive faith, a creed so repulsive that a ‘news’ division doesn’t require any evidence before it rubs salt in the wounds of our Savior.”

This is how most in the so-called mainstream media look at conservative people of faith today — with derision and contempt.

So it is when NBC plans to air the Madonna segment where she appears on the cross in a crown of thorns, the networks’ Entertainment President Kevin Reilly tells TVGuide.com, “We viewed it and, although Madonna is known for being provocative, we didn’t see it as being ultimately inappropriate.”

Of course not.  In the networks’ world of “tolerance,” officials attempt to accept and understand virtually everything, except for Christianity.

Madonna — an icon of sexual openness — mocking the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is not inappropriate.

As for those of us who embrace Christ in our hearts in lives, we are essentially told that if we don’t like it to turn the channel.

Imagine that same rejoinder to the gay-rights community or to the African American community if they were offended by a planned broadcast.

Only Christians are treated this way.

The only way we win in these situations is when we contact the networks en masse to let them know that we will not tolerate their anti-Christian actions.

We should do this routinely and confidently because we have more power than even we realize.  I hope we make the Madonna broadcast the first of many in which we — Christians working together — turn back the tide of anti-Christian bigotry that is standard operating procedure at the networks.

Earlier this week, the so-called mainstream news media were up in arms over a statement I made last weekend at the Values Voters Summit.  During my speech, I remarked that if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton were the Democrat presidential nominee in 2008, it would induce evangelical Christians to oppose her more than if the devil himself were running.

Oh boy, the liberals don’t like that kind of talk.

Of course this was a tongue-in-cheek statement, made to emphasize the fact that the Clintons serve as a motivating factor with conservative people of faith.

But Christians aren’t supposed to have senses of humor.  Watch a network or cable TV show depicting a Christian and you’ll see a morose individual on the verge of breaking out in a fire and brimstone sermon at any moment.

Conservative Christians are continually defined by the media as humorless individuals who want to convert the world into mindless Christian zombies.  So if someone like me utilizes irony or utilizes a whimsical phrase, it is taken as a threatening statement.

On the other hand, Hollywood personalities can make far more malicious statements and nobody questions it.

Take, for example, actor Alec Baldwin’s proclamation on Conan O’Brien’s late-night talk show a few years ago in which he called for the stoning of pro-life Congressman Henry Hyde.

On the broadcast, Mr. Baldwin stated: “I’m thinking to myself if we were in other countries, we would, all of us together, all of us together would go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death!  We would go to their homes, and we’d kill their wives and their children.  We would kill their families.”

Funny stuff, huh?

But Baldwin got away with it because he later said he was joking.  So the media largely excused him with a yawn.

Actor Ian McKellen, who plays Gandolf in the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy, was quoted on Salon.com as saying he routinely rips up Bibles in hotel rooms.

“Whenever I stay in a hotel I always check to see if they have a Gideon’s Bible, and if they do I tear out a page.  I turn to Leviticus 18:22, which is directed against homosexuals; it is one of the Leviticus Laws.  I don’t know if anyone ever even notices, but I really take exception to that section and I think by now I must have ripped out a few hundred pages.  Who knows?  There might be someone who has insomnia who stays awake all night who reads the Bible because they have nothing else to do and who might be especially vulnerable to what I really think is Leviticus’ pornography, so I just remove it.”

But Mr. McKellen was not condemned by the mainstream media because its members have largely adopted a stance that is defensive of homosexuality, even when it means the destruction of the Holy Bible.

Imagine if Billy Graham or Dr. James Dobson stated that they frequently go to Barnes and Noble and rip up homosexual publications.  The outcry would be rightly thunderous.  But there is no media objection to a prominent actor destroying Bibles.

I guess, like flag desecration, this is a free speech issue for liberals.  But what about the free speech of those who print those Bibles?  Apparently they don’t matter.

The double standard here is obvious, except to those in the mainstream media and their dutiful defenders.

We will continue to see the American mainstream media and Hollywood depicting evangelical Christians and conservative Catholics as objects of ridicule.  There is no level playing field or even marginal attempt at honesty when it comes to the portrayal of conservative people of faith.

And so we return to my statement on Mrs. Clinton.

I certainly don’t believe her to be the equivalent of Satan.  I simply believe that if she is the Democrat presidential candidate, her nomination will truly energize the evangelical community, just as the possible presidential candidacy of Newt Gingrich or Sen. Sam Brownback or Gov. Mike Huckabee would galvanize liberal voters.

Maybe I’ll call for the stoning of someone in my next speech and really get the media in an uproar.  And then I’ll tell them I was just teasing.  I’m sure they’ll let me off without objection.

Let’s Protect the Traditional Family in November

This week, the Arizona Supreme Court upheld a lower court judge who found that the state’s proposed marriage protection amendment does not violate the state constitution’s “single subject” rule.  Subsequently, on November 7, Arizona voters will be able to cast their vote as to whether marriage should be reserved as an act between one man and one woman.

In addition this week, the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied a motion by the American Civil Liberties Union and homosexual-rights advocates who wanted the court to re-hear last month’s decision upholding Nebraska’s constitutional amendment that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.

So far, 20 states have passed marriage protection amendments, while 28 other states have statutes protecting marriage.  There is no reason to believe that Arizona voters will break the string of victories for traditional marriage.  Nevertheless, homosexual-rights advocates continue to press for the rights of men to marry men and women to marry women.

In November, seven states — Arizona, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin — will vote on marriage protection amendments on state ballots.  A proposed amendment is also pending in Colorado.  In previous amendment balloting, the average approval rate has been 70 percent.

The significance of these votes is clear: Americans, by large numbers, do not want to legally recognize same-sex marriage.  In Arizona, the Alliance Defense Fund joined with the Center for Arizona Policy to collect 300,000-plus signatures of residents who wanted the issue placed on the November ballot.  That means many people are ready to defend marriage there.

ADF Senior Counsel Glen Lavy said, “Those seeking to redefine marriage unsuccessfully tried to evade the democratic process by misusing a technical provision of the [Arizona] constitution.  Arizona voters deserve to have a say in the matter of marriage and will have the opportunity to do so.”

They sure do.

Activist judges and homosexual-rights advocates have been attempting to thwart the will of the people at virtually every turn in order to further their plan to desecrate the act of marriage.  If we don’t stand to battle them, marriage as we know it will cease to exist.

I continue to believe we need a federal Marriage Protection Amendment.  Such an amendment has twice fallen short of the required two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress, but those of us who want to protect marriage have vowed to see the amendment brought up again.  In fact, last month, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) introduced a federal marriage amendment comprised of a single sentence: “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the legal union of one man and one woman.”

My friend Robert Knight, director of the Culture & Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women for America, says, “Homosexual activists are hoping to crack the defensive wall around marriage by filing lawsuits in a number of states, and eventually bringing down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage for all federal purposes as the union of a man and a woman, and allows states under the Full Faith and Credit Clause not to be forced to recognize unions not legal under their own laws.”

In other words, the battle continues.

“Their strategy is to win the ‘right to marry’ in several state courts before they make a head-on challenge in federal court,” adds Jan LaRue, chief counsel for Concerned Women for America.  “Even the win in Massachusetts hasn’t given them a basis to challenge the federal Defense of Marriage Act because Massachusetts’ law limits same-sex marriage to couples who reside there.”

This is a battle we must not lose.

In the seven states holding state ballot initiatives on marriage in November, residents of those states have a chance to take a stand for marriage.  I encourage everyone in those states to get involved in this issue.  Pastors should be making sure their parishioners know about the issues.

NOTE: To my fellow Virginians, vote YES on November 7 to preserve the traditional family and to deny the legalization of polygamy, same-sex marriage and other diverse family forms.  Let’s continue working together to protect marriage in this nation.

- By Dr. Jerry Falwell

Mathew Staver, president and general counsel for the Orlando, Fla.-based Liberty Counsel, will stand before the U.S. Supreme Court to defend the posting of the Ten Commandments in the public square. This is a daunting task, but I have great faith in Matx s abilities and have confidence that God has raised up this man to take on this crucial undertaking.

The High Court agreed last October to take on the high-profile issue of whether the display of the Ten Commandments in the public square is constitutionally protected. Two lower court rulings reached conflicting views on displays of the biblical tenets on public buildings.

Mr. Staver will appear before the nine justices at the Court on March 2. He says this court case, McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, is one of the most important church-state cases of the last half-century. Read More

  The Future of Marriage, Family and the Supreme Court

- By Matthew D. Staver

The 2004 election has energized people of faith and social conservatives with an overwhelming mandate on traditional marriage and morality. Every politician must hear the message of the American people loud and clear: If you don’t vote right on marriage, then you may want to look for another job.

This year, state constitutional marriage amendments passed in all 13 states in which they were on the ballot: AR (75 percent), Georgia (77 percent), Kentucky (75 percent), Louisiana (78 percent), Michigan (59%), Mississippi (86%), Missouri (72%), Montana (66 percent), North Dakota (73 percent), Ohio (62 percent), Oklahoma (76 percent), Oregon (57 percent) and Utah (66 percent). Read More  

THE MORAL MAJORITY COALITION VOTER REGISTRATION:

Register to vote online! The simple step-by-step process to become a registered voter or change your voter registration will only take a few minutes. Legal restrictions may apply.

You must be a U.S. Citizen either through birth or naturalization and 18 yrs old to register to vote.

CLICK HERE

Click here to become a Charter Member of

The Moral Majority Coalition and receive your FREE TMMC Membership Card.

1979 - With the country in a seeming moral downfall, in April, Falwell joins with Drs. Tim and Beverly LaHaye, Dr. Charles Stanley and Dr. D. James Kennedy to launch an organization with a mission of organizing evangelical leaders who will boldly engage the culture. The Moral Majority kicks off with a pro-life, pro-traditional family, pro-national defense and pro-Israel platform.

1980 - By November, more than 100,000 evangelical pastors, conservative Cath-olic priests and orthodox rabbis have come on board along with seven million families. Add-itionally, the organization mobilizes 8.5 million new voters, largely through church-based voter registration drives, and raises $70 million to continue its efforts. The Moral Majority backs the presidential candidacy of Ronald Reagan and helps sweep him into office in dramatic fashion. In addition, 12 liberal Democrat senators and several liberal House members are also defeated, launching a new wave of political activity within the evangelical community. The political landscape is spectacularly altered.

1988 - At the end of his presidency, Ronald Reagan has appointed three Supreme Court justices and 378 federal judges and has almost single-handedly defeated the “evil empire” of communism. Continuing a close relationship with Falwell and the pro-life community, President Reagan has enhanced respect for unborn life. Most importantly, he has revived America’s esprit de corps, the combination of pride and purpose that is rooted in the values of the nation’s founding.

1989 - Determining that he must focus on the growth of Liberty University — which has today grown into an 8,100-student resident training ground for future political, social and church leaders — Falwell announces that he is disbanding the Moral Majority. The “religious right” continues to survive through the following years, but seems to decline and meander during the Clinton years.

1995 - In February, Falwell launches the National Liberty Journal. The monthly newspaper is designed to inform evangelicals on key moral and spiritual issues of the day. The publication serves as a major tool to encourage hundreds of thousands of pastors and leaders to once again conduct voter registration efforts and get-out-the-vote campaigns in 2000 and 2004.

2004 - In November, Falwell unveils The Moral Majority Coalition, an organization designed to continue the “evangelical revolution” that swept President Bush back into the White House and saw the election of many pro-life leaders to national office. Referring to TMMC as a “21st century resurrection of the Moral Majority,” Falwell, the father of the modern “religious right” political movement, commits to leading the organization for four years.

Last year, Dr. Jerry Prevo, pastor of the Anchorage Baptist Temple, Alaska’s largest church, decided to purchase full-page ads in state newspapers, defining what individuals may do – under constitutional protection – in regard to publicly celebrating the Christmas season.

Dr. Prevo, who is chairman of the Liberty University Board of Trustees, thought the ads were necessary in this age of political correctness that has convinced many of our fellow Americans that Christmas is a dirty word.

In many public venues, and in our schools and workplaces, many Americans have discovered that they are not permitted to erect Christmas decorations, exchange Christmas cards or sing Christmas carols.

Dr. Prevo, after posting the ads in Alaska newspapers, said, ” The ads were a greater success than I had ever imagined. We received an outpouring of community support, and best of all, the preemptive measures resulted in not one incident of religious discrimination. I would encourage every pastor and church to participate.”

He had worked with the Orlando-based Liberty Counsel to formulate the language of the ads, which are part of Liberty Counsel’s “Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign.” That campaign is designed to prevent blatant religious discrimination during the Christmas holidays.

Dr. Prevo’s effort and the work by Mat Staver at Liberty Counsel inspired me to get involved in the campaign.

This week, I decided to purchase two full-page ads in our local newspaper, the Lynchburg News & Advance, with an ad very similar to the one Dr. Prevo posted in his state’s newspapers.

The ad can be seen at this link: http://www.falwell.com/christmas.pdf

Furthermore, I am calling on pastors, churches and individuals to join Liberty Counsel’s “Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign” by purchasing ads in newspapers across the country.

We need to draw a line in the sand and resist bullying tactics by the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, the American Atheists and other leftist organizations that intimidate school and government officials by spreading misinformation about Christmas.

Celebrating Christmas is constitutional!

Thomas Road Baptist Church, the church I’ve pastored for almost 50 years, is sponsoring local newspaper ads promoting the Christmas campaign.

The ads, which are available in different sizes, point out that celebrating Christmas is still legal in schools, on public property and in private businesses. The ads also offer free legal assistance by Liberty Counsel to individuals facing persecution for celebrating Christmas. Liberty Counsel provides a free educational legal memo (http://www.lc.org/attachments/ChristmasMemo2005.pdf ), with a pledge to be a “Friend” to those entities which do not discriminate against Christmas and a “Foe” to those that do.

Mat Staver, president and general counsel of Liberty Counsel, said, “I am thrilled to see so many pastors and churches promoting the Christmas Campaign. For too many years we have remained silent while the ACLU and others like them have played the role of the Grinch. We will no longer remain silent. We have no intention of letting misinformation chase our religious liberty or our religious heritage from the public marketplace. It’s time to set the record straight – Christmas is constitutional.”

Earlier this year, Liberty Counsel announced that thousands of public school teachers and administrators, who are members of Christian Educators Association International, are also joining the “Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign.”

The momentum is changing, but we must work together to reclaim Christmas! I urge pastors across the nation to join me, Dr. Prevo, Mat Staver and thousands of others who are joining hands this Christmas to reclaim our right to sing God’s praises throughout the land at this blessed time of year!

The 2004 election has energized people of faith and social conservatives with an overwhelming mandate on traditional marriage and morality. Every politician must hear the message of the American people loud and clear: If you don’t vote right on marriage, then you may want to look for another job.

This year, state constitutional marriage amendments passed in all 13 states in which they were on the ballot: AR (75 percent), Georgia (77 percent), Kentucky (75 percent), Louisiana (78 percent), Michigan (59%), Mississippi (86%), Missouri (72%), Montana (66 percent), North Dakota (73 percent), Ohio (62 percent), Oklahoma (76 percent), Oregon (57 percent) and Utah (66 percent).

The constitutional amendment in Oregon now ends the court case that had ruled against the marriage laws. The challenge to the state’s marriage laws, brought by homosexual activists, is pending at the Oregon Supreme Court.

In light of the amendment to the state’s constitution, the lawsuit will have to be dismissed.  Homosexual advocacy groups poured money into Oregon, thinking this was the state they had a chance to gain a win for same-sex marriage.  They were wrong.

Conservative Mandate

The biggest news in the Senate races is the defeat of Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota.  Mr. Daschle is the one who orchestrated the efforts to vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment in July. His 26-year career that began in 1978 was ended by Republican John Thune, and the defining issue in the race was once again traditional marriage.  Mr. Thune supports a constitutional amendment to preserve marriage, while Mr. Daschle has opposed it.  Mr. Daschle’s defeat marks the first time since 1952 that a Senate party leader lost reelection.

The House fared just as well as the Senate on marriage. Colorado Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, who pioneered the move in the House to pass a constitutional amendment on marriage, won reelection.  Despite the fact she was targeted by national groups because of her pro-traditional marriage position, she sailed to a clear victory.  Rep. John Hostettler, who sponsored a bill to prevent federal courts from striking down the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, also won reelection.  The net gain in the House by Republicans is also five seats.

President George W. Bush received more popular votes than any other presidential candidate in history, with more than 60 million popular votes.  One of the most important issues for voters nationwide was marriage and morality.  By morality, I mean abortion and embryonic stem cell research, which destroys a developing human life.

The well-known phrase used against George H. W. Bush when he ran for reelection, “It’s the economy, stupid,” could be paraphrased in favor of George W. Bush for all the social and Hollywood liberals as follows: “It’s marriage and morality, stupid.”

This election is a mandate on marriage.  With 13 states passing constitutional amendments to preserve marriage, the defeat of anti-marriage Daschle, and the reelection of every candidate who supported traditional marriage, the message has been sent loud and clear.

This groundswell of support for marriage will carry us forward in the quest to amend the United States Constitution to preserve traditional marriage.

Obviously, the four liberal judges on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did not anticipate that their decision to sanction same-sex marriage would end up causing a revolution on marriage and morality.  Yet, that’s exactly what has happened.

While four million evangelical Christians failed to vote in 2000, in November 20 percent of the voters described themselves as evangelical Christians.  That’s one out of every five voters.

Marriage & Morality

One network commentator attributed the evangelical voter turnout to the strategy of Karl Rove.  However, Mr. Rove did not get out the evangelicals; marriage and morality did.  This year we heard from many national religious leaders about the importance of the election on marriage and morality.  We saw more Christian pastors than ever stand up in their pulpits to urge the church to vote.  This year we saw the beginning of pastors being cured of what I have termed “moral laryngitis.”

With George W. Bush winning re-election and 55 Senate seats being controlled by Republicans, the president will be able to appoint anywhere from one to four justices to the U.S. Supreme Court.  This aspect of the election is by far the most significant.  The future of the Supreme Court has become even more critical with the news that Chief Justice William Rehnquist has thyroid cancer.

The religious liberty defense movement, where Christian lawyers defend religious liberty, the sanctity of human life and the traditional family, is only 15 years old.

Religious Freedom

Liberty Counsel was founded in 1989 as one of the first such religious liberty groups.  In contrast, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was founded in the 1920s.  Thus, through the decades of the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s, the ACLU faced absolutely no opposition.

Not until the late 80s and early 90s was there any opposition to the ACLU on behalf of Christians. During the past 15 years, a lot of progress has been achieved.  Through the courts, many brand new religious liberty precedents have been established.

The so-called “wall of separation of church and state” myth has begun to crumble.  The 1973 abortion decision known as Roe v. Wade came within one vote of being overturned in 1992.

All this progress could have been obliterated had John Kerry become president.  Mr. Bush will have the potential to shape the future of the Supreme Court for the next 20-30 years.  Now that President Bush has been elected by a marriage and morality mandate, and since that same mandate also gave him more friendly seats in the Senate, we must move the battle for the heart and soul of America forward to ensure that the next Justices on the High Court adhere to the values of the majority of Americans.

These justices must understand the rule of law, and must know the difference between the judiciary and the legislative bodies of government.  They must also understand that our Constitution is not putty to be molded by individual ideological opinion, but that it sets forth immutable principles rooted in the best of our Western legal tradition.

A Godly Reprieve

Our gracious God has given us a reprieve.  Our heads rested on the chopping block, but the impending death sentence of marriage and morality has been annulled.

We now must use the next four years to preserve marriage and morality and to secure Justices on the United States Supreme Court who will support the rule of law.

The election is a clean sweep on marriage and morals.  The effort to amend the U. S. Constitution to preserve traditional marriage will move full-steam ahead.

Although the battle for the U.S. Supreme Court is not over, we now have the opportunity to appoint justices who will judge — not legislate — from the bench.  This election sets the future course of the U.S. Supreme Court for the next 20-30 years.  Marriage, morality and the sanctity of human life were the real winners in this election.  The people have spoken.  The politicians must now listen or seriously consider finding other employment.

Visit Liberty Counsel’s Web site: www.lc.org

Following the November 2 elections, Democrat political leaders were left with the task of transforming the image of their party    in the wake of a “values” revolution that found their candidates insufficiently armed to appeal to traditional voters.  There was talk of the party getting that old time religion and reaching out to values voters and people of faith.  Even former President Bill Clinton noted that the party suffered because party leaders did not engage “the Christian evangelical community in a serious discussion of what it would take to promote a real culture of life.”

It may prove quite entertaining to watch Democrats polish off their Bibles in an attempt to spiritualize their message and work to bring values voters back to the fold.     The problem for Democrats will be to actually label their values; simply buffing up their same old policies without truly defining their values will be a futile exercise.

This will be particularly difficult considering the growing radical wing of the party comes from a perspective that morality is in the eye of the beholder.  This is also the element of the party that doesn’t try to hide its outright scorn for the Christian community.

The anti-Christian loathing is evident all over the Internet, with liberal malcontents proposing an actual “secession” to Canada in the wake of November 2.  Following the elections, a map began to circulate in cyberspace; it depicts a “new country” called the United States of Canada.  This new nation would consist of Canada and the 19 blue states won by Sen. John Kerry.

Possibly most disturbing in this display of bitterness is what the “secessionists” are contemptuously calling the blue states that elected President Bush to office — “Jesusland.”  You can now find Jesusland maps and sites throughout the Internet, with subsequent blogging such as these actual quotes:

* One man said he wants “a new country away from the rednecks in Oklahoma and the homophobic knuckle-draggers in Wyoming.”

* “… when you people and your bizarre mystery cult claim the <expletive> president as your prime convert who rules by the voices in his head, I call that <expletive>.”

* “I suggest a flag for Jesusland.  Keep the stripes, but change the stars to crosses.  It would be a fitting tribute to the dumb, the deluded and the dysfunctional.”

The militant left frequently preaches sermons on “tolerance,” but these types of hostile invectives against Christians do nothing but expose the meaningless of their take on the term.

In a recent column, Tony Blankley, editorial page editor of The Washington Times, said the ill will against evangelicals by growing numbers of Democrats is evident.

“This dominant sentiment of the Democratic Party elite — that scores of millions of Americans are categorically unacceptable as fellow countrymen — is evidence of a cancer in the soul of that party,” Mr. Blankley wrote.  “These Democrats, quite expressly, are asserting that ‘Christers,’ people who believe in the teachings of Jesus as described in the inerrant words of the Bible, are un-American, almost sub-human.  Some of these Democrats would rather secede than stay in the same country with such people.  If they were in the majority with no need to secede, what would they do?  Their bigoted and absolutist view of religious people is at least a second cousin to the Nazi view of the Jews.”

Prior to the release of Mel Gibson’s “The Passion” a host of critics predicted that the film would stir violence against Jews.  That never happened, of course.  One has to wonder if those same voices will now arise to suggest that the antagonistic anti-Christian verbiage we are seeing on the Internet and in other leftist venues may set off violent attacks against believers.

Don’t count on it.

“The intolerance of the left is breathtaking,” said Gary Bauer, chairman of the Campaign for Working Families.  “Their sense of intellectual superiority is boundless.”

“In some ways,” Mr. Bauer said in his End of the Day column, “all of this is humorous, but it exposes a  profoundly serious reality.  If you are one of the 70 percent who believe marriage should remain between a man and woman, if you are one of   the 80 percent who think it is okay to publicly display the Ten Command-ments, if you are one of the vast majority who believe America   is a decent land and a force for good in the world, the leftist elites believe you are the equivalent of a Nazi!  Where is the ‘common ground’ here?  How do we attempt to ‘heal wounds’ when they are infected with such venom?”

| While the left will now begin painting on their “values” faces, their efforts to attract Bush supporters    will almost certainly bear few fruits.

Meanwhile, it behooves Christ-ians to continue to promote true biblical values and evoke the godly standards of our Founding Fathers.  As Mr. Bauer notes, “The radicals remain unbowed and we must remain vigilant.”