Translate

Wednesday, April 20, 2016

EVANGELICALS ARE LOSING THE BATTLE FOR THE BIBLE~AND THEY'RE JUST FINE WITH THAT

EVANGELICALS ARE LOSING 
THE BATTLE FOR THE BIBLE~
AND THEY'RE JUST FINE WITH THAT 
BY JIM HINCH
SEE: http://lareviewofbooks.org/article/evangelicals-are-losing-the-battle-for-the-bible-and-theyre-just-fine-with-that; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

LIKE MANY evangelical Christians, A. J. Zimmermann tells his conversion story with near-pointillistic detail. A 25-year-old recent divinity school graduate from Southern California, Zimmermann grew up in a non-religious household near Los Angeles with what he called “a lot of divorce” and an abusive stepfather. During his freshman year of high school,
there was this really cute girl in my Spanish 1 class. We started talking and she invited me to go to youth group. I had no idea what that was, but I thought, “She’s cute, maybe this will work out.” I’d never been in that context before — guitars and music and teaching about the Bible. I just kind of sat there and I was like, “Okay, I’m open to whatever’s here.” And I had this sense of love and peace come out of nowhere, and I was crying and crying, and I was just really curious about what this was.
Two days later, after learning “about Jesus and the cross and this whole salvation thing” at a second youth group meeting, Zimmermann committed his life to Christ. He became a regular churchgoer and went on to attend Azusa Pacific University, an evangelical Christian college east of Los Angeles. (The cute girl in Spanish class wound up dating his best friend.) Zimmermann graduated with a degree in biblical studies, enrolled in Azusa Pacific’s seminary program, married a fellow student (they struck up a conversation in a cafĂ© after eyeing each other reading theology books), and began working part time as a youth pastor at a local church. He now directs a training program for prospective pastors at Life Pacific College, a Pentecostal seminary in San Dimas, California.
Zimmermann’s prototypical evangelical experience is emblematic in one additional, unexpected way. Since graduating from high school, Zimmermann has undergone a revolution in his thinking about evangelicals’ foundational text, the Bible, to the extent that he no longer regards the Bible as inerrant, dictated by God, historically accurate in all of its claims or even internally consistent with itself. “The Bible holds high authority in my life,” Zimmermann told me recently. And yet, he added,
I think it’s important to remember the intent and purpose of the biblical texts. These texts were not intending to portray exact historical fact but to show how God is moving with history, alongside people […] If we understand the term inerrancy to be “without error” then no, I don’t view the Bible as inerrant […] The Scripture is not trying to be without error. It is trying to communicate the love God has for His creation.
I was introduced to Zimmermann by one of his seminary teachers, an Azusa Pacific biblical studies professor named Karen Strand Winslow, who put me in touch with several of her students after I asked her what young evangelicals think about the Bible these days. In addition to his dismissal of biblical inerrancy, Zimmermann told me he no longer believes the biblical book of Genesis is “concerned […] with young-versus-old-earth, literal days of creation stuff.” He said biblical passages appearing to condemn homosexuality are products of their time and do not necessarily apply to present-day same-sex couples “committed in a consensual relationship.” The same goes for New Testament prohibitions against women in church leadership. “We often forget that Jesus’s ministry was founded by women and that the first evangelists were women,” he added. Overall, Zimmermann said, the days when evangelicals defined themselves by their uncompromising style of biblical interpretation are over. “Before my generation […] it was like, if you don’t believe this doctrine, you’re undermining the work of Christ on the cross. [My generation is] not as okay with the simplified answers.”
Evangelical Christianity in America is in the midst of a wholesale generational, cultural, and doctrinal transformation. Confronted by a secularizing and diversifying society, evangelicals are abandoning long-held political allegiances, softening their views on sexuality, grappling with the racial divide in their churches, and rethinking their entire approach to ministry and evangelization. Underlying all of these developments is a more fundamental change in the way evangelicals understand and interpret their most cherished text, the Bible. Though evangelicals proclaim themselves — and are portrayed in most media accounts — to be univocal followers of an inerrant, plainly interpreted Bible, in fact there is widening diversity in their approach to Scripture. Like Zimmermann, a growing number of evangelicals are abandoning “the simplified answers” and seeking a richer, more nuanced, more challenging engagement with Scripture, one grounded not in aphorisms or political ideology, but in what Zimmermann called the deeper “truth of who God is.”
This quest has led many evangelicals to revise their interpretation of key biblical passages (especially those addressing sexual or social justice themes), downgrade parts of Scripture as historical anachronisms, and reject the political call to arms still sounded by a dwindling generation of conservative elders. A new evangelical theology is taking shape, one that retains the Bible as its centerpiece, but understands it very differently. Evangelicals once summarized their approach to Scripture with a staccato catchphrase: “The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.” Today, especially among younger evangelicals, each part of that formula is undergoing revision. “I’ve never been in the camp of wanting to draw these hard lines,” Zimmermann told me. He went on:
My hard lines are sort of, “Just go with the basic statements of the faith.” Yes, I believe in Jesus, and if people don’t believe in Jesus, alright, there’s room for conversation there. I never want to be the one to count someone out. I don’t think that’s my job. What I’ve seen in the Scriptures is to love, and love, and love, and keep on loving until they kill you.
This is a big, variegated change, with profound consequences for evangelicals’ distinct religiosity and their often combative relationship with mainstream American society. So far, no single observer has captured the change, or its ramifications, in its entirety. But the picture is coming into focus as journalists, scholars, and evangelical leaders grapple with increasing sophistication and candor with evangelicalism’s uncertain future in a secularizing America. An array of recent publications, both online and off, portray a church taking determined steps to survive by rethinking some of its basic approaches to faith.
One of the sharpest and most recent of those accounts is a book-length immersion into the hitherto under-reported world of progressive evangelicalism by Deborah Jian Lee, a religion journalist and visiting scholar at Cornell University. In Rescuing Jesus: How People of Color, Women, and Queer Christians are Reclaiming Evangelicalism, Lee tells interlocking stories of gay, black, Asian, and women Christians agitating for change in a faith tradition characterized by its doctrinal and cultural conservatism. Combining immersive reporting with brief forays into historical research, Lee profiles key activists and cites an array of sociological data showing that evangelical churches are diversifying ethnically and stratifying generationally as younger evangelicals cast aside hostility to gays and seek to end their faith’s alienation from mainstream America.
“For a long time, whatever white evangelical leaders said was theology was theology with a capital T,” Lee said when I spoke with her recently,
Today, because of the demographic shifts and because of where young evangelicals are theologically and the influx of people of color, we’re seeing that theology can come from many different places […] Theology is becoming more inclusive of the people who are within the church.
Evangelical observers do not dispute such claims. “There’s a shift as older generations are passing away and new generations are coming of age,” said Jonathan Merritt, an evangelical author and columnist for Religion News Service, whose coverage has closely tracked evangelicals’ evolving attitudes toward Scripture. He added:
You’ve seen a fracturing of the movement. You’ve got an approach now where when people want to know what the truth is about something, young Christians are still consulting the Bible. But oftentimes they’re bringing the Bible into conversations with other forms and sources of knowledge […] To see the Bible as a one-stop shop for everything, science, history, every matter of faith, and anything and everything you need to know is contained there — that’s been a perspective that’s shifted.
Thanks to America’s recent about-face toward same-sex relationships, that shift is now observable in real time, both in print and online. “I’m opening a can of worms,” writes Ken Wilson, a prominent Michigan pastor, at the start of his 2014 book, A Letter to My Congregation: An Evangelical Pastor’s Path to Embracing People Who are Gay, Lesbian and Transgender into the Company of Jesus. In 216 densely argued pages, Wilson tells how what began as a “fleeting unease” grew into a wholesale reevaluation not only of what the Bible says about sexuality, but of basic assumptions about biblical truth long considered sacrosanct within evangelicalism.
“We become understandably concerned when we think the authority, value, or trustworthiness of Scripture might be at stake,” Wilson writes. Nevertheless, he concludes that over-interpretation of a handful of biblical prohibitions against homosexuality has obscured a deeper biblical message:
We are called to practice the gospel discipline, the gospel glory, the gospel enactment, of mutual acceptance […] It seems to me that this ethic is emphasized so strongly because the Jesus movement knew all too well the danger of over-zealous or harmful application of the Bible.
Sexuality figures prominently, too, in megachurch pastor Adam Hamilton’s recent book-length effort to persuade evangelicals that many of their most cherished biblical views are the product of convention, not timeless truths. “There are statements on [the Bible’s] pages that I don’t believe capture the character and will of God,” Hamilton writes at the beginning of Making Sense of the Bible: Rediscovering the Power of Scripture Today. Hamilton, named a Distinguished Evangelist by the United Methodist Church, goes on to dismiss many totems of conservative Christianity — the six-day creation of the world, subordination of women, opposition to homosexuality — replacing them with what he calls “an attempt to honestly wrestle with the difficult questions often raised by thoughtful Christians and non-Christians concerning things taught in the Bible.” One thing his book does not contain: claims of biblical inerrancy or scientific accuracy, which he calls “flawed […] When the Bible is read while holding these assumptions the reader will, at some point, become confused, misguided or profoundly disappointed.”
To the dismay of conservative leaders, views like Hamilton’s are gaining ground. Just one in five of all Americans — and only 13 percent of those under age 30 — currently believes that “the Bible is the actual word of God and should be taken literally, word for word,” according to the American Bible Society, which each year conducts what it calls a national “State of the Bible” survey, measuring American attitudes toward Scripture. Most Americans hold a more nuanced opinion of the Bible, viewing it as either an inspired text with historical errors or “just another book of teachings written by men.” Close to a majority believes “the Bible, the Koran and the book of Mormon are all different expressions of the same spiritual truths.” In a 2009 study by the Barna Group, an evangelical research organization, more than 20 percent of self-proclaimed “born-again” Christians disagreed that the Bible “is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches.” Sixty percent of born-agains denied that Satan is real, and nearly 40 percent said they did not believe “Jesus lived a sinless life.”
Conservative evangelicals have tried to counter such trends with their own publishing efforts — salvos in what a recent Christianity Today editorial called “the New Battle for the Bible.” Two years ago, Kevin DeYoung, a prominent Michigan pastor and co-leader of a national network of theologically conservative churches, published Taking God at His Word: Why the Bible is Knowable, Necessary, and Enough, and What That Means for You and Me, a book expressly intended, as he put it to me, “to help reassert for a new generation the divine inspiration and total trustworthiness of the Scriptures.” DeYoung said he “often hear[s] from older Christian leaders that they’ve never seen more hunger for the Bible, more of a willingness to learn, and a more of commitment to sound theology in younger generations than they see today.” But he acknowledged that preserving traditional biblical interpretation in contemporary evangelicalism has become a challenge. “I think we are seeing the beginning of a big sort in American Christianity, and among evangelicals in particular,” he said,
I have no doubt many young people are more flexible and less traditional in their understanding of the faith, especially when it comes to sexual ethics […] I don’t think there is less formal allegiance to Scripture in evangelical churches. But practically, the authority of the Bible can be neutered when churches don’t think it’s clear, it’s sufficient, or it’s all that understandable.
DeYoung’s careful distinction between evangelicals’ “formal allegiance to Scripture” and their actual adherence to biblical principles is on point. Though evangelicals continue to portray themselves in public — especially to their opponents in political debates — as unwavering upholders of biblical orthodoxy, in practice even many high-profile evangelical leaders appear increasingly comfortable jettisoning those parts of the Bible that might interfere with their ministry to contemporary America. “I believe the Scripture is without error in its original autographs, as I Tweeted the other day,” California megachurch pastor Rick Warren said in a 2011 online interview. Nevertheless, despite Jesus’s unambiguous prohibition of divorce in three different New Testament gospels, Warren’s Saddleback Church not only welcomes America’s sizable population of divorced evangelicals, it offers them a special ministry led by Saddleback members who, according to the church’s website, “have healed from the impact of divorce and can minister to those who have just completed the walk.” The divorce ministry is not unique to Saddleback. It is a video-based program called DivorceCare developed by Church Initiative, a North Carolina para-church organization that crafts ministry products for Christian single parents, divorcees, and the grief-stricken. “How can God produce something good out of something as bad as divorce?” the DivorceCare website asks. “This segment [of the 12-part DivorceCare program] will show you how to grow closer to God as you go through your divorce experience.”
Similarly, Willow Creek Community Church in suburban Chicago, flagship of a global network of thousands of evangelical congregations, employs women pastors and elders despite clear biblical prohibitions against women leading in church. “A few isolated scriptural texts appear to restrict the full ministry freedom of women,” a statement on Willow Creek’s website explains,
The interpretation of those passages must take into account their relation to the broader teaching of Scripture and their specific contexts. We believe that, when the Bible is interpreted comprehensively, it teaches the full equality of men and women in status, giftedness, and opportunity for ministry.
“I don’t know of anybody who’s a biblical literalist,” New York City megachurch pastor Tim Keller says in a 2009 online video tutorial about biblical interpretation. Keller, founder of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan and co-founder of the national conservative church network where Kevin DeYoung serves on the governing council, is widely hailed by evangelicals for successfully ministering in a secular city without compromising biblical integrity. Keller’s official position on the Bible is that “Scripture is our final authority” for all matters of faith. Nevertheless, he carves out room in his tutorial for skeptical New Yorkers to reinterpret individual biblical passages that conflict too discordantly with modern life. Keller says he himself doesn’t take the creation story in the first chapter of the biblical book of Genesis literally because it is not written:
as historical prose narrative […] Obviously, Genesis 1 has a big impact on how you understand evolution and so forth. So, I would consider myself a person who believes in the full authority of the Bible, and yet even if you believe that, there’s room for debate about what parts of the Bible you take literally or not.
At a recent Sunday morning service at Redeemer, I spoke with Aaron Link, a 28-year-old software engineer for Google who teaches first graders in the church’s Sunday school. He told me he was, like most Redeemer members, theologically conservative, believing the Bible to be “the Word of God, therefore it’s inerrant, it’s trustworthy, it’s authoritative.” Yet Link was flexible when it came to particulars. The creation narrative in Genesis? “I’ve heard different things from people here […] I’m still trying to figure it out.” Should women be allowed to lead in churches? “It’s not something I’ve looked into. If a person argued that it’s scripturally based, I’d go with that.” Should all parts of the Bible be taken literally? “Just because you believe a part of the Bible is metaphorical, you’re not compromising the inerrancy of Scripture.”
What remains unclear is whether evangelicals’ gradual loosening of biblical strictness will enable them to overcome the significant demographic challenges coinciding with their change of course. Last year’s most important religion-related publication might well turn out to have been the Pew Forum’s 2015 Religious Landscape Study, a comprehensive survey of the nation’s religiosity that found a startling 5-million drop in the number of American Christians since 2007. The number of evangelicals rose by 2.4 million, but the increase was not enough to keep pace with overall population growth. If current trends continue, evangelicals will be outnumbered by non-religious Americans in just a few years. A closer look at the Pew numbers suggests even the growth evangelicals experienced was powered largely by mainline Protestants and Catholics fleeing their own declining congregations. More than a quarter of all evangelicals were raised either as mainline Protestants or as Catholics, according to Pew, compared to just nine percent converted from outside Christianity. Among millennials, the youngest age cohort surveyed by Pew, just one-fifth are evangelical, compared to 35 percent professing no religion at all.
“Most teens will walk away from faith when they graduate from high school,” said Guy Wasko, an evangelical pastor in New York City with whom I spoke about the challenges of sustaining Christianity in a secularizing America. He was referring to an emerging body of research showing that up to 80 percent of Christian young adults turn their back on faith. Two-thirds of those dropouts eventually find their way back to church later in life. But that remains a high rate of attrition — roughly a quarter of children raised as Christians walking away from their faith. Among those who depart, according to the Barna Group, an evangelical research organization, close to a majority — 41 percent — said they left because their church seemed “judgmental,” “hypocritical,” “unfriendly,” or “unwelcoming.”
Wasko said his church, Trinity Grace, a 9-year-old megachurch headquartered in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan with 10 satellite branches throughout the city, has succeeded in luring back young church dropouts by replacing the “vehemently opposed to gay marriage fire and brimstone guy on Sunday morning” approach to Christianity with what he described “a current, more relevant expression of the faith.” “More relevant” includes Wasko’s earrings and tattoos, “Philosophy and Faith” nights with atheist guest speakers, “artist salons” featuring “drinks and wine and cheese,” and sermons about the irony of irreligious Manhattanites worshiping at the altar of work and success.
Most importantly, said Wasko, Trinity Grace does not insist that its members adhere to a strict, literal interpretation of Scripture. “A lot of damage has been done by the preacher on a soapbox shouting out hell fire and brimstone,” he said. Trinity Grace offers a different form of Christianity:
We invite people into community. We invite them into groups exploring the Scripture and no question is taboo. Let’s look at the text and read it together and ask for wisdom from those who have gone before us and the Spirit itself […] I would make a lot of enemies in the evangelical world if I was quoted saying that parts of the Scriptures are parabolic, that there wasn’t a six-day creation […] [But] let’s argue that the Scriptures as a whole are parabolic in nature. Does that make them less true? Sheep don’t cry wolf but the parable still delivers a truth. At a 30,000-foot level, if we can agree with that, then maybe we can get past some of the hang-ups people have toward the text.
Trinity Grace’s online statement of faith begins with the declaration — standard in evangelical churches — “We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the infallible, authoritative Word of God.” In practice, said Wasko, church members do not read all Bible passages with the same interpretive lens:
If my whole faith is ruined because all of a sudden creation wasn’t six days or Jesus didn’t walk on water, that’s not really faith. I still believe lots of crazy-sounding things, like Jesus’s resurrection from the dead. If you reject that, you’re moving away from orthodox Christianity […] I’m just saying that if my God of the Scriptures is not bigger than my ability to make sense of them, that’s not God. If I can figure everything out, then that’s pretty pathetic. A lot of people like to work with bricks, not rubber bands and springs. But I think life is more dynamic than bricks.
Zimmermann told me, his own evolution away from biblical literalism began with his first Bible class at Azusa Pacific. Though the college’s official statement of faith also begins with the words, “We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative word of God,” professors nevertheless introduce their students to the basics of biblical scholarship, and to what Karen Strand Winslow, Zimmermann’s seminary teacher, called “the human side” of the text’s origins and meaning. Zimmermann said he instantly realized the “aphorisms” he was taught in church youth groups were woefully simplistic. “We were given these answers that worked for our parents but didn’t work for us,” he said.
Zimmermann said his goal as a Christian, what he called his “capstone project,” was to win back disenchanted young evangelicals by showing them a richer, more open-ended way to read the Bible. “How do we bring alive these texts we’ve heard over and over again? How do we address our generation?” he said. He concluded:
There are some people who come into faith through logic and seeing that God is the only way. But we’re people of feelings, and we just want to know that we’re loved […] I think it’s a lot easier to create doctrinal statements and say, “These are true, and if you don’t believe them, you’re out,” than it is to say there’s room for ambiguity and relationship, and we’re all just different people trying to figure this thing out together.
¤
Works considered in this essay:
Pew Research Center, “America’s Changing Religious Landscape” (May 12, 2015).

DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR OF LOUISIANA RESCINDS PREDECESSOR'S RELIGIOUS LIBERTY ORDER

Edwards-compressed
DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR OF LOUISIANA RESCINDS PREDECESSOR'S 
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY ORDER
BY HEATHER CLARK
SEE: http://christiannews.net/2016/04/15/democratic-governor-of-louisiana-rescinds-predecessors-religious-liberty-order/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

BATON ROUGE, La. — As promised, the Democratic governor of Louisiana has vetoed an executive order issued by former Gov. Bobby Jindal that provided religious liberty protections to objectors of same-sex “marriage.”
“I believe in giving every Louisianan the opportunity to be successful and to thrive in our state. Our goal is to promote the opportunities we have right here in Louisiana,” said Gov. John Bel Edwards, a Roman Catholic, in a statement on Wednesday. “While this executive order respects the religious beliefs of our people, it also signals to the rest of the country that discrimination is not a Louisiana value, but rather, that Louisiana is a state that is respectful and inclusive of everyone around us.”
Jindal, also a Roman Catholic, had issued an order last May after legislators failed to pass a religious freedom bill, the “Marriage and Conscience Act,” which was struck down in a House committee 10-2.
“[I]t is of preeminent importance that government take no adverse action against a person, wholly or partially, on the basis that such person acts in accordance with his religious belief that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, but that this principle not be construed to authorize any act of discrimination,” it read in part.
Jindal also explained in a statement that the executive order would “prohibit the state from denying or revoking a tax exemption, tax deduction, contract, cooperative agreement, loan, professional license, certification, accreditation, or employment on the basis the person acts in accordance with a religious belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.”
On Wednesday, Edwards condemned Jindal’s order, stating that it “was meant to serve a narrow political agenda.”
“It does nothing but divide our state and force the business community, from Louisiana’s smallest businesses to large corporations like IBM, to strongly oppose it,” he said. “This executive order threatens Louisiana’s business growth, and it goes against everything we stand for—unity, acceptance, and opportunity for all.”
Edwards was referring to businesses that had expressed objections expressed over Jindal’s order, including IBM, which asserted that it would “create a hostile environment for our current and prospective employees.”
Those who support Edwards’ move likewise claim that Jindal’s religious liberty order was harmful to the economy.
“Businesses like Moonbot must do everything we can to attract top creative talent to Louisiana. The Marriage and Conscience Order sanctions unfair discrimination and prevents growth in Louisiana’s creative economy,” Lampton Enochs, CEO of Moonbot Studios, said in a statement released by Edwards’ office.
In rescinding Jindal’s order, Edwards issued his own order declaring that government officials may not act adversely in employment matters over the person’s “sexual orientation” or “gender identity,” and bars those who contract with the state from doing the same. It provides an exemption for churches and faith-based organizations.
Some expressed disappointment in Edwards’ order, such as the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF) in Baton Rouge.
“LFF condemns harassment and intentional discrimination, but this executive order necessarily introduces sexual politics into the workplace, a legally undefined protected category, and invites unnecessary legal claims simply on the basis of personal disagreements,” it said in an email on Wednesday.
“Ironically, while other states are seeking to protect people of faith, Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards seems to be using his executive power to silence those same people of faith,” LFF stated. “The religious exemption contained in the governor’s order is extremely narrow and ignores the multitude of good people of our state who are employed by Louisiana’s largest employer, state government, but who also hold sincerely held religious beliefs with regard to sex outside of the confines of natural lifelong marriage.”


Friday, April 15, 2016

"MODERATE" FLIP FLOPPER KASICH CONDEMNS MISSISSIPPI'S RELIGIOUS FREEDOM LAW: "WHAT THE [EXPLETIVE] ARE WE DOING?"~QUESTION: WHAT IS HE DOING?

KASICH: NOT TAKING SIDES MEANS HE'S JUST ANOTHER COWARDLY COMPROMISER;  
SUPPORTS AMNESTY FOR ILLEGALS, COMMON CORE & GAY RIGHTS IN NORTH CAROLINA & NOW MISSISSIPPI
"IN OUR STATE (OHIO), 
WE'RE NOT FACING THIS" (AMONG OTHERS)
HE WOULD AVOID "POLARIZATION" BETWEEN PEOPLE OF FAITH & GAYS
Kasich II Credit Gage Skidmore
ANOTHER ARLEN SPECTER???
MORAL RELATIVIST FLIP FLOPS ON POLITICAL & MORAL ISSUES, WIVES & RELIGIONS. WHAT WOULD HE DO AS PRESIDENT?
"Kasich has been married twice. His first marriage was to Mary Lee Griffith from 1975 to 1980, and they had no children. Griffith has campaigned for Kasich since their divorce. Kasich and his current wife, Karen Waldbillig, a former public relations executive, were married in March 1997 and have twin daughters, Emma and Reese.
Kasich was raised a Catholic, but considers denominations irrelevant, and stated that "there's always going to be a part of me that considers myself a Catholic." He drifted away from his religion as an adult, but came to embrace an Anglican faith after both his parents were killed in a car crash by a drunk driver on August 20, 1987. Kasich has said he "doesn't find God in church" but does belong to the St. Augustine church in Westerville, Ohio, which is part of the Anglican Church in North America, a conservative church that broke off from the Episcopal Church."
KASICH CONDEMNS MISSISSIPPI'S 
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM LAW: 
"WHAT THE [EXPLETIVE] ARE WE DOING?" 
BY HEATHER CLARK
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

NEW YORK — Republican presidential candidate John Kasich condemned Mississippi’s religious freedom law this week, just a day after telling reporters that he would not have signed North Carolina’s “bathroom bill” requiring residents to use the restroom that correlates with their biological gender in government buildings.
“I read about this thing they did in Mississippi, where apparently you can deny somebody service because they’re gay,” Kasich stated during a town hall event in New York, which was hosted by CNN. “What the H*ll are we doing in this country?”
“I mean, look, I may not appreciate a certain lifestyle or even approve of it, but it doesn’t mean I’ve got to go write a law and try to figure out how to have another wedge issue,” he said.
As previously reported, just last month, Kasich had backtracked remarks that some interpreted as suggesting that businesses should have to agree to forms of participation in events that conflict with their religious convictions.
“[I]f they ask you to participate in something you really don’t like, that’s a whole other issue. Okay? Another issue,” he said during the Fox presidential debate in Detroit on March 3. “If you go to a photographer to take pictures at your wedding and he says, ‘I’d rather not do it,’ find another photographer. Don’t sue them in court.”
Kasich said at that time that if people of faith are being forced to participate in something that conflicts with their convictions, then laws should be crafted to protect them—if necessary.
“At the end of the day, if somebody’s being pressured to participate in something that is against their deeply held religious beliefs, then we’re going to have to think about dealing with a law,” Kasich outlined. “But you know what? I’d rather people figure this out without having to put another law on the books and have more arguments in this country.”
Kasich’s previous “if you’re a cupcake maker and somebody wants a cupcake, make them a cupcake” remarks had drawn criticism, as some stated that he was making false assertions as no businesses are declining to serve homosexuals—that current legal battles are over personal participation in an event, not providing general service.
The Mississippi bill that Kasich condemned on Monday likewise refers only to forms of participation in marital events, and does not permit the refusal of service in general. It prohibits the government from punishing those who pass up particular events for religious reasons.
“The state government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person wholly or partially on the basis that the person has provided or declined to provide … services, accommodations, facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, formation, celebration, or recognition of any marriage, based upon or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction,” the Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act reads in part.
As previously reported, the bill also bans the government from punishing those whose policies require use of locker and restrooms consistent with their biological gender.
On Sunday, Kasich told CBS’ “Face the Nation” that he wouldn’t have signed North Carolina’s “bathroom bill” into law either.
“I believe that religious institutions ought to be protected and be able to be in a position of where they can live out their deeply held religious purposes. But when you get beyond that, it gets to be a tricky issue. And tricky is not the right word, but it can become a contentious issue,” he said.
“Why do we have to write a law every time we turn around in this country? Can’t we figure out just how to get along a little bit better and respect one another? I mean that’s where I think we ought to be. Everybody chill out. Get over it if you have a disagreement with somebody,” Kasich said. “Unless there’s something that pops up, I’m not inclined to sign anything.”
_______________________________________________________

John Kasich: Accept Men in Women’s Bathrooms, Boys Showering With Girls?
Published on Apr 15, 2016
John Kasich may be the most pro-amnesty Republican running for president, but now we learn he’s also pro something else: having men in women’s bathrooms and boys showering with girls. This is apparently the case as the Ohio governor recently stated he “‘wouldn’t have signed” the recent North Carolina “bathroom bill.” - http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/...



COMMON CORE TEACHER OUTSPOKEN OUTRAGE

PARENTS SHOULD REFUSE 
COMMON CORE TESTS 
FOR THEIR CHILDREN

The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Pearson Tests

BY KATIE LAPHAM
SEE: https://criticalclassrooms.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-pearson-tests/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Over the course of three consecutive days last week, students in grades 3-8 took Pearson’s New York State (NYS) Common Core English-language arts (ELA) tests.  As was the case in 2013, 2014 and 2015, the 2016 ELA tests were developmentally inappropriate, confusing and tricky.  Despite the New York State Education Department (NYSED)’s “adjustments” to the 2016 assessments, there was no improvement to the quality of the tests.
While I am barred from disclosing the reading passages and questions that appeared on the tests, in no way will I refrain from broadcasting to the world how outraged I continue to be – year after year – over New York’s oppressive testing regime.  Since 2013, when Pearson’s Common Core tests were first administered in New York state, I’ve been documenting this nightmare on my blog.
IMG_8354
On 4/3/16, Lauren Cohen and I demonstrated at NYC councilman Danny Dromm’s rally in Jackson Heights, Queens. Dromm was informing parents of their right to opt-out of the NYS Common Core tests. As a member of the MORE caucus of the UFT, Lauren is running for VP of Elementary Schools in the upcoming UFT election. She truly puts children first.
Here are my thoughts on the 2016 ELA test.  I have focused on third grade because these students – aged eight and nine – are our youngest NYS Common Core test-takers.
1.) The 2016 Common Core ELA test was as absurdly long as it was in 2013, 2014 and 2015 despite the fact that it was shortened by just one reading passage and by a handful of multiple choice questions.
  • Day One: 4 reading passages, 24 multiple-choice questions (Students darken the circles on Answer Sheet 1).
  • Day Two: 3 reading passages (same as 2015), 7 multiple-choice questions (Students darken the circles on Answer Sheet 2), 2 short-response questions (Students write answers directly in Book 2.) 1 extended-response question (Students write answer directly in Book 2).
  • Day Three: 3 reading passages (same as 2015), 5 short-response questions (Students write answers directly in Book 3) and 1 extended-response question (Students write answer directly in Book 3).
TOTALS: 10 reading passages, 31 multiple-choice questions, 7 short-response questions and 2 extended-response questions.
For the short-response questions, students typically write a paragraph-long response that must include at least two details from the passage. The extended-response question requires an essay-like written response: introduction, supporting evidence/details, conclusion. Where is the NYSED’s research that shows that this is an educationally sound testing program for a third grader? Seriously. Does anyone know how the NYSED justifies this? The length alone of these tests warrants our banging of pots and pans in city streets.
2.) Now let’s move on to content.  The reading passages were excerpts and articles from authentic texts (magazines and books).  Pearson, the NYSED or Questar did a poor job of selecting and contextualizing the excerpts in the student test booklets.  How many students actually read the one-to-two sentence summaries that appeared at the beginning of the stories? One excerpt in particular contained numerous characters and settings and no clear story focus.  The vocabulary in the non-fiction passages was very technical and specific to topics largely unfamiliar to the average third grader.  In other words, the passages were not meaningful. Many students could not connect the text-to-self nor could they tap into prior knowledge to facilitate comprehension.
3.) The questions were confusing.  They were so sophisticated that it appeared incongruous to me to watch a third grader wiggle her tooth while simultaneously struggle to answer high school-level questions. How does one paragraph relate to another?, for example. Unfortunately, I can’t disclose more.  The multiple-choice answer choices were tricky, too. Students had to figure out the best answer among four answer choices, one of which was perfectly reasonable but not the best answer.  Here’s what P.S. 321’s principal,Elizabeth Phillips, wrote about the 2014 Common Core tests.  Her op-ed We Need to Talk About the Test appeared in The New York Times on April 9, 2014.  These same issues were evident on the third grade 2016 ELA test.
“In general terms, the tests were confusing, developmentally inappropriate and not well aligned with the Common Core standards. The questions were focused on small details in the passages, rather than on overall comprehension, and many were ambiguous. Children as young as 8 were asked several questions that required rereading four different paragraphs and then deciding which one of those paragraphs best connected to a fifth paragraph. There was a strong emphasis on questions addressing the structure rather than the meaning of the texts. There was also a striking lack of passages with an urban setting. And the tests were too long; none of us can figure out why we need to test for three days to determine how well a child reads and writes.”
4.) The reading levels of the passages were above “grade” level, whatever “grade” level means these days.  One passage was an article recommended for students in grades 6-8. Has the NYSED done any research on early childhood education? Defending the Early Years cites a Gesell Institute of Child Development report that says,
“…the average age at which children learn to read independently is 6.5 years. Some begin as early as four years and some not until age seven or later – and all of this falls within the normal range.”
Yet for the NYS Common Core ELA test, the NYSED expects all third graders to be able to decode and comprehend texts that are typically used with fourth, fifth and sixth graders?
5.) While in theory I prefer untimed tests to timed tests, the lack of a time limit is of little comfort to students who are subjected to developmentally inappropriate tests.  Read this heartbreaking account by a New York City teacher who blogs atpedagogyofthereformed.wordpress.com. Of a former student, this teacher writes,
“After 18 hours of testing over 3 days, she emerged from the classroom in a daze. I asked her if she was ok, and offered her a hug. She actually fell into my arms and burst into tears. I tried to cheer her up but my heart was breaking. She asked if she could read for a while in my room to calm down and then cried into her book for the next 15 minutes.”
Leonie Haimson, Executive Director of Class Size Matters, noted in a post on her blogNYC Public School Parents that this “…appears to violate the NY law passed in 2014 that limits state testing time to one percent of total instructional time.” Additionally, fellowChange the Stakes member, Rosalie Friend, pointed out that “without a set time limit, the tests no longer are standardized.  Therefore, one cannot draw ANY conclusions from the scores.” So this alone seems to invalidate these $44 million tests.
Collectively, we must stop this insanity.  I’ve been sounding the alarm on these tests since 2013, and the vast majority of educators I know agree with me.  I’m beyond fed-up that I have to continue to administer these assessments to my students.  It is unconscionable to me that Chancellor Fariña, in her 3/15/16 letter to NYC parents, wrote that these tests are “incredibly important” and a “valuable experience for our students.” It’s been nearly a month since I read those words and my jaw is still on the floor.
Parents – if you haven’t already refused the tests, you still have time to opt-out of the Common Core math tests, which will be administered on April 13, 14 and 15 of this week.
Teachers and administrators – the Common Core testing climate in New York state is too dire for you to remain quiet.  Speak up and encourage parents to opt-out.  Boycotting these tests is the only way to change course.
May this video of these principled MORE teachers inspire you.
Screen Shot 2016-04-06 at 7.16.19 PM
From left to right: NYC teachers Lauren Cohen, Kristin Taylor and Jia Lee spoke critically of the NYS Common Core tests to NBC 4 New York. Screenshot courtesy of NYC teacher and UFT chapter leader Arthur Goldstein who blogs at nyceducator.com.

For more information, please visit:

NORTH CAROLINA GOVERNOR SIGNS EXECUTIVE ORDER TO APPEASE LGBT COMMUNITY & CRITICS

6 OF ONE; 1/2 DOZEN OF THE OTHER
IS THAT "THE NORTH CAROLINA WAY"?: 

SECULAR HUMANISM SKIRTS AROUND 
MORAL DEPRAVITY & PERVERSION; 
JUST LIKE IT SKIRTS AROUND ABORTION 
PRIVACY IN PUBLIC RESTROOMS & EQUALITY IN BUSINESS RESTROOMS ADDS MORE CONFUSION & CONTRIBUTES TO MORAL RELATIVISM & LOSS OF NATURAL RIGHTS 
FOR EMPLOYEES

COMPROMIZER JETTISONS MORALS, COWARDLY ATTEMPTS TO APPEASE GAYS (WHO WON'T BE APPEASED UNTIL THEY HAVE THEIR WAY COMPLETELY, I.E., DESTROYING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS)
McCrory Credit Hal Goodtree
N.C. Governor Signs Executive Order to Appease LGBT Community and Other Critics
BY RAVEN CLABOUGH
SEE: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/22970-nc-governor-signs-executive-order-to-appease-lgbt-community-and-other-critics; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

On Tuesday, North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory (shown) caved to pressure from big businesses and the LGBT community and signed an executive order to change the state’s recently passed LGBT law that barred local governments from extending protections to gay and transgender individuals and mandated that individuals use bathrooms based on the biological sex that appears on their birth certificates. Unfortunately for the governor, the order failed to appease the law's critics and has provoked criticism from the law's supporters. 
“I have come to the conclusion that there is a great deal of misinformation, misinterpretation, confusion, a lot of passion and frankly, selective outrage and hypocrisy, especially against the great state of North Carolina,” McCrory said in a statement. “Based upon this feedback, I am taking action to affirm and improve the state’s commitment to privacy and equality.”
House Bill 2 was introduced in response to a Charlotte City Council ordinance that allowed transgender people to use a bathroom based on the gender with which they identify. The bill revoked that measure and prevented the introduction of new LGBT ordinances in the state, Newsweek explains. The bill was signed in late March, sparking outcry from numerous groups that claimed the bill amounted to discrimination.
In an effort to address concerns raised by critics, McCrory’s executive order establishes protections for state employees against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and calls on legislators to reinstate the right to sue for discrimination. The executive order does not, however, address the provision that requires people to use the bathroom based on the gender with which they are born, though the bathroom provision is considered by critics to be the most controversial portion of the law.
McCrory said in his video announcement that his executive order “maintains common sense gender-specific restroom and locker facilities in government buildings and in our schools,” but said that private businesses could continue to set their own rules for bathrooms and locker rooms.
McCrory’s executive order follows announcements by Deutsche Bank and PayPal Holdings that the companies would not expand operations within the state. The Washington Post reports that PayPal announced last week it would forego plans to open a new facility in Charlotte as a result of the law, and Duetsche Bank said on Tuesday it would stop its plans to expand in the state, citing the law as the reason. “We take our commitment to building inclusive work environments seriously,” John Cryan, co-chief executive of Deutsche Bank, said in a statement Tuesday.
The Post notes that other major companies such as Apple, Google, and American Airlines have spoken out against the law, and reports that the law could “potentially cost the state major events like the next NBA All-Star game, currently scheduled to be held in Charlotte.”
But the law has supporters as well. WRAL reports that demonstrators stood outside of the State Capitol on Monday “praying and waving signs of support for the governor.”
Governor McCrory hoped that his executive order would appease the law’s opponents, while maintaining the support of the law’s supporters. “Simply put, I have listened to the people of North Carolina, and the people of North Carolina are entitled to both privacy and equality,” McCrory said. “We can and we must achieve both of these goals.”
But despite McCrory’s efforts to assuage the law’s critics, the executive order has received mixed responses.
The Charlotte Chamber of Commerce praised McCrory’s order as one that presents North Carolina as a place “that promote diversity, inclusiveness and equality.” “We applaud the governor’s actions today which demonstrate that North Carolina is an open and welcoming state,” the Charlotte Chamber of Commerce said in a statement. “We strongly encourage the leadership and members of the General Assembly to take quick action to the governor’s call to ensure citizens have the right to pursue claims of discrimination at the state level.” But organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union claim that the executive order did not go far enough because it left intact the bathroom provision.
“Gov. McCrory’s actions today are a poor effort to save face after his sweeping attacks on the LGBT community, and they fall far short of correcting the damage done when he signed into law the harmful House Bill 2, which stigmatizes and mandates discrimination against gay and transgender people,” Sarah Preston, acting executive director of the ACLU of North Carolina, said in a statement.
The ACLU, along with various other organizations, has filed a lawsuit against North Carolina’s law, claiming it is discrimination. The ACLU stated McCrory’s executive order has no effect on their lawsuit and they will continue to move forward.
And supporters of the bill contend that McCrory’s executive order amounts to nothing more than a “cave-in,” as it adheres to misunderstandings about the law and its intent.
State Representative Tim Moore (R), speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives, contends that the legislation has “been unfairly reported and maligned by political activists.” “Governor McCrory’s executive order affirms the importance of the actions the General Assembly took in passing the Bathroom Bill to protect North Carolina citizens from extremists’ efforts to undermine civility and normalcy in our everyday lives,” Moore said in a statement.
Meanwhile, the Democratic North Carolina attorney general, Roy Cooper, who is running against McCrory for governor, used McCrory’s executive order for his political advantage. “Governor McCrory’s executive order is a day late and a veto short," Cooper said in a statement. "I’m glad Governor McCrory has finally acknowledged the great damage his legislation has done, but he needs to do much more."
_______________________________________________________

North Carolina Governor Issues Executive Order to Clear Up Confusion About ‘Bathroom Bill’

BY HEATHER CLARK
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

RALEIGH, N.C. — The governor of North Carolina issued an executive order on Tuesday to help clear up what he believes is confusion and misinformation about a recently passed state law that annulled a controversial “bathroom bill” in Charlotte and banned other cities from passing similar ordinances.
“I have come to the conclusion that there is a great deal of misinformation, misinterpretation, confusion, a lot of passion and frankly, selective outrage and hypocrisy, especially against the great state of North Carolina,” Gov. Pat McCrory said in a statement. “Based upon this feedback, I am taking action to affirm and improve the state’s commitment to privacy and equality.”
The executive order declares that businesses can enact their own policies surrounding restroom and locker room use, and that businesses and local municipalities can establish their own non-discrimination policies surrounding the employment of homosexual and transgender persons.
McCrory also called for lawmakers to send a bill to his desk that would reinstate the ability to sue for employment discrimination.
“I will immediately seek legislation in the upcoming short session to reinstate the right to sue for discrimination in North Carolina state courts,” he said. “Simply put, I have listened to the people of North Carolina, and the people of North Carolina are entitled to both privacy and equality. We can and we must achieve both of these goals.”
As previously reported, last month, North Carolina lawmakers passed the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act after the Charlotte City Council voted to expand the city’s non-discrimination ordinance to add provisions for homosexuals and those who identify as the opposite sex—including in regard to restroom and locker room use.
“Public agencies shall require every multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility to be designated for and only used by persons based on their biological sex,” the legislation reads in part. “Local boards of education shall require every multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility that is designated for student use to be designated for and used only by students based on their biological sex.”
The Act had been presented after the Charlotte City Council voted 7-4 last month to expand the city’s non-discrimination ordinance to add provisions for homosexuals and those who identify as the opposite sex—including in regard to restroom and locker room use.
McCrory promptly signed the Public Facilities Act into law on the same day of its passage, and later released a fact sheet to clarify what he believed were misunderstandings about the content of the ordinance.
“Businesses are not limited by this bill. Private individuals, companies and universities can adopt new or keep existing nondiscrimination policies,” it read in part. “[I]f a privately-owned sporting facility wants to allow attendees of sporting events to use the restroom of their choice, or install unisex bathrooms, they can. The law neither requires nor prohibits them from doing so.”
“This law simply says people must use the bathroom of the sex listed on their birth certificate. Anyone who has undergone a sex change can change their sex on their birth certificate,” the fact sheet also advised.
Homosexual and transgender advocacy groups state that they are unsatisfied with McCrory’s executive order because it did not revoke the requirement that residents must use the restroom and locker room consistent with their birth gender at schools and public agencies.
“The governor’s action is an insufficient response to a terrible, misguided law that continues to harm LGBT people on a daily basis,” Sarah Warbelow, legal director at the Human Rights Campaign, told the Associate Press. “It’s absurd that he’ll protect people from being fired but will prohibit them from using the employee restroom consistent with their gender identity.”
Others have stood behind the law as a sensible move to protect the privacy and decency of residents.
“It is just common sense that men should not go into the women’s restrooms,” Tami Fitzgerald, the executive director of the North Carolina Values Coalition, told reporters. “It’s ridiculous to have such an uproar.”




McDONALD’S PROMOTING MORAL RELATIVISM & TOLERANCE~OUTRAGE IN TAIWAN

VIDEO OF BOY "COMING OUT" TO HIS FATHER IN MCDONALD'S TAIWAN

BUILDING MONUMENTS TO TOLERANCE 
IN JERUSALEM
McDONALD’S PROMOTING MORAL RELATIVISM & TOLERANCE
BY DAVID CLOUD 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

McDONALD’S PROMOTING MORAL RELATIVISM/TOLERANCE (Friday Church News Notes, April 15, 2016, www.wayoflife.org, fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) - 

McDonald’s has joined the frenzy by major international corporations to promote acceptance of homosexuality. An ad in Taiwan features a boy “coming out” to his father in a McDonald’s restaurant. When the boy writes “I like boys” on a McCafe coffee cup and slides it across the table, the father initially seems upset and walks away, but he quickly returns and writes on his own cup. “I accept that you like boys.” “Music swells and the boy cries tears of joy. The spot closes with the tag, ‘Let there be more warmth in conversation’” (“McDonald’s Ad,” Fox News, Mar. 10, 2016). The fundamental theme is non-judgmentalism, tolerance, and moral relativism, which is a major doctrine of the New Age. Those who resist the doctrine are considered enemies of man’s evolution and of world peace. “Love” and oneness and unity must prevail, while “intolerance” must be rejected. This is a major theme in Israel today as witnessed by the Tolerance Monument in Jerusalem. The sculpture is a broken column with the two halves held together by an olive tree. The explanation says, “Between the branches of the olive tree a new seed is sprouting, a golden grain of tolerance.” It was reported in February of this year that Jerusalem’s Zion Square is being renamed Tolerance Square in memory of Shira Banki, a 16-year-old stabbed to death during the 2015 Gay Pride parade. Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat says the redesigned space “will be used as a place of tolerance and meeting, a place that will exemplify the values and beliefs of Banki” (“Zion Square to be memorial,” Times of Israel, Feb. 15, 2016). A new $100 million Museum of Tolerance is also being constructed in Jerusalem. (For more about the New Age emphasis on tolerance see The New Age Tower of Babel, available in print and eBook formats from www.wayoflife.org.)