It’s a sad day when governments use Christmas as a vehicle for persecuting believers.

Of course, it’s not a new strategy. But it’s one that the Vietnamese government used in December—and it’s causing persecution watchers to start monitoring Vietnam more closely again.

According to International Christian Concern (ICC), Vietnam used the Christmas holiday to crack down on Montagnard believers. Claiming that peaceful Christmas services were a political threat, Vietnamese officials surrounded gatherings and enforced a law making it unlawful for Montagnard Christians to gather. Consider these three incidents:

• On December 23, 2010, a villager named A Nhang was slapped in the face and kicked for challenging the police’s right to stop a Christmas service at the village of Buon Hamong K’tu. Another villager named A Thao subsequently stated, “We are here only to worship our Lord and not do anything to oppose the Government.” A security officer, identified as Nguyen Van Niem, then reportedly struck A Thao in the back twice with a baton and responded by saying that he should not have spoken.
• On December 24, 2010 at the village of Buon Kret Krot, security forces destroyed Christmas decorations and a nativity scenes that the local villagers had decorated.
• On December 24, 2010, security forces surrounded the house church at Buon Dak Kang village while confiscating religious items from the church. A female villager confronted them asking, “Why are you taking away our possessions? Why have you done this? Why can’t we worship our Lord?” A security forces assaulted her, shoving her to the ground.

“This treatment of Christians exposes the true lack of religious freedom in Vietnam,” says Logan Maurer, ICC’s Regional Manager. “In 2006 the U.S. State Department removed Vietnam from the Country of Particular Concern list, citing progress in religious freedom. Clearly events like this show what really is happening behind closed doors: religious freedom in the highlands of Vietnam is a convenient falsehood. We urge the U.S. and other governments to exert influence all on Vietnam to improve its treatment of religious minorities. ”

Many organizations have initiated ministry in Haiti over the last year in direct response to the massive 2010 earthquake. The Mission Society has been considering work in Haiti for years, but they have been careful not to jump hastily in.

The Mission Society’s Jim Ramsay says Haiti has been on his heart for a while. But after meeting Haitian Yvan Pierre, leader of International Christian Development Mission (ICDM), Ramsay was finally able to embark on an exploratory trip to the country.

Ramsay recently returned from Haiti full of ideas—yet still rightfully cautious—and in search of God’s will for The Mission Society. Ramsay says too many groups have gone into the country with their own agenda, and The Mission Society will not be one of them.

“We want to make sure that anything we do in Haiti, or anything we encourage our constituents to do in Haiti, is done wisely, is done with humility, and is done recognizing the Haitians know their own country,” says Ramsay.

After speaking with various people while in Haiti, it was clear that good intentions of some can go awry without the help of the local people. “The one thing that we heard loud and clear from Haitians is they don’t feel like they are taken seriously, and they don’t feel like they’re listened to—even by the very people who want to help them.”

Needless to say, if The Mission Society enters Haiti permanently, it will be under the guidance of Haitian leaders.

“Christian missions need to be working alongside, and in more cases under, the leadership of Haitians. That’s a difficult position to be in, especially when we have the financial resources they don’t have. That tends to put us in a position of power which we need to very intentionally step out of, and recognize that they have incredible resources in their human resources that we need to encourage and empower.”

Ramsay says for now, it looks like work would be focused on an ICDM partnership and a great deal of training with the local church. The ministry believes working with the local church is critical and would thus send experts in several areas like women’s ministry, water sanitation, and more, to train church leaders in those realms. The church would then be at the forefront of innovation for the community. This would undoubtedly allow for immeasurable opportunities for kingdom building.

The Mission Society is still seeking God’s direction. Pray for discernment and wisdom as to whether or not God wants The Mission Society in Haiti. Pray also for ICDM’s current ministry in Haiti, and for ways The Mission Society can help, even if a permanent ministry in Haiti is not established.

Is the Church doing too much, or not enough, in Haiti?

Terrorists have attacked in Moscow. The BBC is reporting carnage at Russia’s Domodedovo airport, where at least 34 people lie dead and more than 100 are injured. Officials report a suicide bomber set off his blast in the arrivals hall.

“We were walking out through the exit of the arrivals hall towards the car, and there was this almighty explosion, a huge bang… my colleague and I looked at each other and said ‘Christ that sounds like a car bomb or something’, because the noise was, literally, it shook you,” Briton Mark Green, who was on a British Airways flight that landed at the airport before the explosion, told BBC News.

Pavel Tokarchuk, director of Russian Ministries’ Moscow office, described the mood of the country’s capital as “panicked.” According to Reuters news service, extremists and rebels from the Northern Caucasus have planned to step up violence in Russia’s heartland as the country prepares for its 2012 presidential election.

“We are asking your prayers for the terrorist attack that took place in Moscow’s biggest airport, Domodedovo,” Tokarchuk says. “I was there a week ago flying through to Siberia on a Project Hope trip. Very crowded airport. What has happened is just unbearable. Please, raise your prayers for the relatives of the victims, and for the more than 50 people who are in the critical conditions because of their injuries.”

In light of the meeting this weekend in Turkey during which the Iranian regime refused to seriously engage the six powers about its nuclear program, a coalition of religious and civic leaders sent a letter to the U.S. Senate urging members to enact tough sanctions against the Iranian regime to intensify pressure on its leaders to halt their drive to build nuclear weapons.

Christian Leaders for a Nuclear-Free Iran, an ad hoc coalition of evangelical, Roman Catholic and other faith leaders, is urging Americans to support additional legislative efforts aimed squarely at compelling Iran to abandon its program to develop and deploy nuclear weapons.

In its letter, the coalition  lays out a detailed list of actions that must be taken to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Members fear a nuclear Iran will bring serious harm to the United States and its allies and further destabilize the Middle East.

Signers of the letter to the Senate include Dr. Pat Robertson, Chairman and Founder of CBN and Regent University, Dr. Richard Land, President of Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Paul F. Crouch, Jr., Chief of Staff, TBN, Gary Bauer, President, American Values, John C. Hagee, Senior Pastor, Cornerstone Church, San Antonio, Texas, Tom McClusky, Sr., Vice President, Family Research Council Action, and Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman, Liberty Counsel.

Brick pavers are at the center of a new Christian controversy in La Quinta, Calif.

Two Christian women purchased brick pavers through a school-directed fundraiser. The women were later told they would not be included in the sidewalk alongside other similarly inscribed inspirational, commemorative, and tributary messages on the Palm Desert High School campus because of their religious content.

Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) attorneys filed a lawsuit on Thursday against the Desert Sands Unified School District Board of Education on behalf of the two women.

“Christians shouldn’t be discriminated against and excluded from expressing their faith on public high school campuses when that door of communication is open to virtually everyone else,” says ADF Senior Counsel David Cortman.

“The government cannot single out Christians because their religious viewpoint does not coincide with campus orthodoxy. Christians have the same First Amendment-protected rights as everyone else does on public school campuses, and their messages are no less worthy of exposure than other individuals’.”

Here’s the back story: In February 2010, the Palm Desert High School PTO announced its brick pavers fundraiser, which was approved by the school principal, as well as by the board and superintendent of the school district. No limitations were given as to the content of the messages on the pavers—other than the length—and the fundraiser policy stated that the messages could be used to pay tribute, create a legacy, commemorate a special event, or give recognition to various entities.

Shortly thereafter, Lou Ann Hart and Sheryl Caronna submitted requests to purchase brick pavers with Scripture verses engraved on them, for which they later paid. In August, after the bricks were made, but before they were installed on the new campus’ walkway, Hart and Caronna were notified that their pavers’ inclusion on the walkway was denied because they quoted Bible verses.

According to ADF, officials cited the so-called “separation of church and state.” Hundreds of other pavers had been accepted, including ones with inspirational and religious messages. Nevertheless, school officials erroneously asserted that the Bible verses used by the women would establish an unconstitutional establishment of religion. Each woman paid several hundred dollars; neither received refunds.

In November, ADF attorneys sent a public records request letter on behalf of Hart and Caronna to school officials, informing them that their denial violated the ladies’ constitutional rights, requesting a copy of the paver fundraiser policies, denial communications, and a list of all other approved brick inscriptions. ADF reports that the officials denied the request for the documents later that month, and also refused a second request for the documents in December. Hart’s five bricks and Caronna’s larger brick remain uninstalled.

ADF attorneys contend that the school has accepted hundreds of other messages similar to Hart’s and Caronna’s, including other religious quotes, such as a Hindu quote from Mahatma Gandhi and the Bible quote “Yes, it is possible,” written in Spanish.

The lawsuit Hart v. Tomack was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Peter Lepiscopo of San Diego, one of nearly 1,900 attorneys in the ADF alliance, is serving as local counsel.

Desert Sands Unified School District Board of Education was not immediately available for comment.

Was Chinese President Hu Jintao’s visit to Washington a concern or a cause for celebration? China expert Steven W. Mosher, the first American social scientist allowed into China in 1979, remains concerned.

Mosher points to China’s abominable human rights record, repressive government regime and unfair economic policies as reasons for outrage at the recent state visit.

“As Hu Jintao is feted by President Obama, China continues to persecute Christians, lock up dissidents, and brutally enforce the one-child policy,” says Mosher. “I was recently in China, gathering evidence of human rights abuses in China’s infamous population control program.”

While some are going political, others are turning to prayer.

All Girls Allowed, a new organization devoted to mothers’ and girls’ rights in China, will pray with at the Chinese Embassy on Monday at 4:30 p.m.

Led by Nobel Prize nominee and former top Tiananmen Square student leader Chai Ling, the group will call out to God concerning the millions of babies aborted, killed and abandoned as a result of the One-Child Policy in China.

“Many great leaders are here in D.C. today focusing on rights: either to live or to choose. In China, neither right is given,” says Ling. “Let’s pray for the 35,000 babies a day in China who are not allowed to live, and for their parents, whose choices are unthinkably difficult in the midst of great pressure.”

Meanwhile, there’s no word on the Rev. Patrick Mahoney, who was arrested in front of the White House last week. Mahoney was calling upon President Obama to “publicly, passionately and boldly speak out against the human and religious rights abuses by the Chinese government against their own people” when Jintao visited the White House.

MTV is known for its provocative, even controversial reality TV shows. Now, some are concerned that the music television network has crossed the line into child pornography and obscenity.

At the heart of the debate is “Skins.” MTV describes the new show as “a wild ride through the lives of a group of high school friends stumbling through the mine field of adolescence…and stepping on most of the mines as they go.” Characters include Tony, who is attractive, witty and manipulative, Michelle, who is beautiful and clever, and the dysfunctional Cadie.

On Monday, Morality in Media called for MTV and Viacom to stop airing the show to avoid the exploitation of children and because it may violate U.S. child pornography and obscenity laws. Morality in Media’s call follows a move by the Parents Television Council (PTC). The PTC petitioned the chairmen of the U.S. Senate and House Judiciary Committees and the Department of Justice to immediately open an investigation regarding child pornography on Skins.

The New York Times reported last week that the network itself is concerned about violating child pornography laws. In addition to the sexual content on the show involving cast members as young as 15, PTC counted 42 depictions and references to drugs and alcohol in the premiere episode. The run-time was only 41 minutes excluding commercial breaks.

“Given the allegations of sexually explicit conduct by minors that have been made in news reports and by the show’s distributors, MTV and Viacom, some material may constitute child pornography under U.S. law if certain conditions are met,” says Patrick Trueman, CEO of Morality in Media. Trueman is a former Chief of the U.S. Department of Justice Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section in Washington, D.C.

“U. S. child pornography laws prohibit any visual depiction involving children under the age of 18 engaged in ‘sexually explicit conduct,’ which is defined under those laws as ‘actual or simulated’ sexual intercourse, including ‘genital-genital, oral-genital’ sex and a variety of other sexual acts,” says Trueman, noting that according to news reports the British episodes of “Skins” do depict sexually explicit conduct with minors involved.

So far Taco Bell, Wrigley and H&R Block have yanked their advertisements from Skins. Viacom could not immediately be reached for comment.

Would you let your youth watch Skins?

Will West Virginia University-Parkersburg officials reverse their decision to eliminate all student speakers from its nursing program’s pinning ceremony on account of a prayer request? Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) attorneys have sent a second letter strongly urging the school to do just that.

University officials decided to ban all student speakers because one of the speakers played a lead role in the graduating students’ plea to allow the traditional invocation and benediction at the event. ADF attorneys are giving the university until 5 p.m. Thursday to comply or face a federal lawsuit.

“Christian students shouldn’t be censored for expressing their beliefs. Retaliating against students who simply asked to exercise their freedoms at a public graduation ceremony by removing all student speakers is simply unacceptable,” says ADF Litigation Counsel Travis Barham.

“Prayers and similar forms of religious expression have been constitutional for centuries, and they are still protected by the First Amendment today. Our client was well within her rights to urge administrators to restore them to the program. The university is punishing all three students because it does not like the speech of one. This is both ridiculous and illegal.”

Here’s how the controversy started: In November, graduating students voted to include student speakers at the December pinning ceremony, which was rescheduled for January 21 due to inclement weather. One of those speakers later became a leading voice in the effort to restore the traditional prayers to that ceremony after WVU-Parkersburg nullified the students’ 40-to-4 vote to include prayers.

This action prompted ADF attorneys to send their first letter to the university in December, urging officials to reinstate invocations and benedictions at the ceremony and pointing out that federal appellate courts have unanimously upheld prayers at university graduation ceremonies. After receiving this letter, the university decided to drop all the student speakers from the pinning ceremony program, informing them of this decision on January 18. WVU-Parkersburg could not immediately be reached for comment.

In its second letter, ADF attorneys point out that the government may not retaliate against citizens for exercising their constitutional freedoms. Yet here, the ADF says, after choosing to include student reflections in the program and even choosing the students to deliver them, the university cut all three students from the ceremony because one of them became a critic of the administration and an advocate for public prayer.

“[The university] has amply demonstrated its disdain for its students and their liberties,” the second ADF letter reads. “From eliminating prayers that 90 percent of [nursing students] supported to now ignoring them on all three issues, it has shown that voting is merely an archaic ritual that has meaning only if the administration likes the results..” ADF attorneys continue in the letter by observing that the university “has shown that those who take a lead role in sparking peaceful debate, asserting their liberties, and differing with administrators, will be targeted for retaliation and reprisals.”

A Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives had no trouble repealing Obama’s proposed healthcare legislation. By a vote of 245-189, the House reversed the controversial health care form Obama signed into law last March.

The White House went into high gear with a media blitz trumpeting the voices of health reform and speaking out about how editorial boards across the country agree that repealing the Affordable Care Act is a bad idea.

Conservatives are pleased, but not quite pleased enough.

Now, some are calling on the House to take the next step and vote on a replacement bill that would offer legislation to protect the conscious of healthcare workers as it relates to abortion. The Susan B. Anthony List is among them.

“We must avail ourselves of every opportunity to protect American taxpayers from being complicit in abortion. The electorate sent this message loud and clear last November and, most notably, in districts were self-described pro-life Democrats who voted for health care were defeated. The Republican leadership is listening. That is the first step in righting a grave wrong,” the SBA List said in a published statement.

“We urge the pro-life House to now vote for the replacement resolution that instructs committees to put forth legislation that, among other provisions, will provide sufficient statutory protection for the unborn and the conscience of health care workers.”

On Thursday, the House is expected to vote on a motion instructing congressional committees to “report legislation including provisions that prohibit taxpayer funding of abortions and provide conscience protections for health care providers.”

President Barack Obama offered a touching eulogy at a memorial event for the victims of the Tucson shooting on Jan. 8. Obama asked Americans to channel their emotions toward the pursuit of a more perfect union, saying that “If this tragedy prompts reflection and debate—as it should—let’s make sure it’s worthy of those we have lost.”

But some wanted to hear more from Obama about free speech. Craig L. Parshall, senior vice president and general counsel of the National Religious Broadcasters, is among them. Parshall has published an open letter to the president, hoping for a response. The following is the text of Parshall’s letter:

Dear President Obama:

I watched with great interest your eloquent comments delivered at the Tucson, Arizona, memorial ceremony. I appreciated not only the beautiful and ennobling sentiments about the lives both lost and saved in this tragic shooting (as well as the numerous references to Scripture), but also your call for all of us to take stock of the things that really matter—such things as family, and service to others. But of course your speech was not delivered in a vacuum. It followed several days of commentary  by many leaders in the Democrat Party who attempted to make a connection between this senseless act of violence and conservative media. Almost immediately, as the facts about the gunman started coming in, it was clear that this tragic act of violence was wrought by a man who was mentally unbalanced. No evidence indicated that he was motivated by the opinions of others delivered over the airwaves or the Internet. Despite that, Steve Israel, the Chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), recklessly announced that the killings showed how “political rhetoric turns violent.” Dick Durbin (D-IL), the number two Democrat leader in the Senate, linked the shootings to “toxic rhetoric.” In media interviews, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), a key House leader as the Minority Whip, echoed the same thought. What concerns me is that these misguided ideas may lead to a new throttling of First Amendment rights in our nation. In the wake of the shootings, Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) said he will introduce a bill reinstating the “Fairness Doctrine,” an obsolete and nefarious former FCC doctrine that was wisely abandoned in the 1980’s because of the devastating damage it did to the free speech rights of broadcasters. Rep. Robert Brady (D-PA) promised to introduce legislation making it a crime to use certain symbols in connection with comments about Members of Congress. A few days later, Governor Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island banned all state employees from giving interviews on talk radio programs.

The national press observed, as I did, that your speech attempted to address this issue of possible censorship of political rhetoric in general, and the conservative media in particular. The New York Times opined that your remarks contained “clear political ramifications,” and Politico noted that your speech was “undeniably political.” To your credit, you did appear to dispel the wild speculations that conservative commentary could be linked to the tragic events in Tucson. I also noted your call for what the press has called a return to “civility” in our public discourse. As the preeminent association of Christian broadcasters and communicators, we at National Religious Broadcasters expect our members to emulate this kind of respectful tone in their media comments. But while your speech said much that was noteworthy, there was also much that was left unsaid.

You called on America to “challenge old assumptions in order to lessen the prospects of violence in the future,” but did not expand on that. As a former law professor, you know well, Mr. President, that the price of the First Amendment is that our citizens will often have to endure exposure to ideas that they vehemently oppose. I would like to believe that well-worn ideals of freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, and freedom of the press will not be part of those “old assumptions” that will be jettisoned. My concern is not unfounded. A new wave of anti-Christian censorship has arisen among “new media” platforms of communication, leading NRB to launch its John Milton Project for Religious Free Speech in an effort to reverse this trend. Commentators and even legal scholars are now openly suggesting the outlawing of so-called “hate speech” from not only talk radio, but also from the Internet—an idea that would inevitably translate to a gag rule against politically incorrect ideas including, we fear, statements of traditional Christian orthodoxy.

Against this troubling backdrop of calls for the suppression of opinion stands the White House, with all the prestige, instant media access, and “bully pulpit” power that comes with your high office. Mr. President, the time is now to state your position with clarity: to publicly voice your opposition to these unconstitutional legislative suggestions that have sprung, seemingly in full-bloom, from the blood-spotted soil of Tucson. After all, in what may be the ultimate irony, when shortly before the Arizona shooting the Members of the House of Representatives determined to read into the public record the words of the U.S. Constitution, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was tasked to read aloud those very concepts now assailed by the pronouncements of some of her colleagues. She recited those historic, and familiar words contained in the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances.

Do you agree with Parshall’s letter? What should Obama do?