An open letter to the President of the United States:

Mr. President -

I would like to express my sincere gratitude for the willingness of the White House and the U.S delegation to the World Summit on Children for standing strong and holding fast to what most Americans do, in fact, believe. Strong families are vital not only to the stability of the American culture, but also to the continuing existence of the United States itself. Please continue to stand for families, marriage and sexual purity.

HIPOCRICY ALERT!!! Once again, the nefarious forces on the Left prove that their only real motive is to undermine the traditional religious and family institutions. Fox News reports on a Supreme Court case involving the Child Online Protection Act. Pay special attention to this quote “In writing the [Child Online Protection Act], Congress said ‘contemporary community standards’ should guide what is harmful to children. Civil liberties defenders said, as Stevens did, that the standard would lead to the most prudish place in America having veto power over the most liberal, because Internet material is available to them both.” It is interesting that these same "civil libertarians" of the ACLU consistently attack religious displays on the grounds that a small minority might be offended, even if the vast majority of the community is in support of the display. In effect, they are allowing the least religious people in a given community to have “veto power” over any religious display. For example, a single family of atheists is suing to stop the Woodbine High School choir from singing a rendition of “the Lord's Prayer” at its graduation ceremony. The lawsuit is supported by the Iowa Civil Liberties Union. I guess it's OK for a small group to have a veto, as long as you are vetoing religious expression rather than porn.

Ahhh, freedom of choice. The liberty to decide one's own fate is a cornerstone of the American way of life (and indeed of much Christian theology, unless you happen to be a Calvinist - but that's a discussion for another time). It seems, though, that when many people speak of "freedom of choice", what they really mean is "MY freedom of choice, regardless of the consequences for anyone else". The abortion debate is a fantastic example. You have abortion supporters crowing about "choice", but they denegrate those who would choose differently than they would.

Another example appears to be deafness. Apparently, some deaf people want to preserve the "deaf culture" by denying their children the option of being able to hear, even when that option is available. Now, I would be the first to stand and say that parents have the right and the responsibility to make choices for their children, but those choices need to be made with the child's best interest in mind. Now it is very true that a child could have a full, productive life without being able to hear, but it could not be described as "normal". It is incredibly irresponsible to intentionally choose a life for a child that will subject him to this kind of difficulty.