The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit is busy these days. After hearing arguments for and against Obamacare on Tuesday, the appellate court will decide whether the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) can force censorship of prayer before public bodies on Thursday.

The case dates back to March 2007. That’s when ACLU and AU attorneys sued the Forsyth County board in federal court on behalf of three individuals because it “does not have a policy which discourages or prohibits those whom [the board] has invited to deliver prayers from including references to Jesus Christ, or any other sectarian deity, as part of their prayers.”

“In other words, the ACLU and AU are advocating censorship,” says Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) Senior Legal Counsel Brett Harvey. “They do not wish to allow private citizens invited by the board to express themselves consistent with the dictates of their own conscience.”

Forsythe County appealed after a district court barred the commissioners last year from opening public meetings with prayer that may mention a particular deity. ADF filed the appeal on the board’s behalf in a lawsuit filed in 2007 by the ACLU and AU. County residents overwhelmingly support the board’s prayer policy.

“In a country whose founders opened public meetings with prayer, its public officials should be able to do the same. Nor should they be forced to whitewash the prayers of those invited to offer them simply because secularist groups don’t like people praying according to their own conscience,” says ADF Allied Attorney Mike Johnson. “We are confident that the 4th Circuit will acknowledge our nation’s heritage of prayer above the unfounded arguments to eradicate it.”

In January 2010, a federal court issued an order agreeing with a federal magistrate’s recommendation to rule against Forsyth County, despite arguments made against the recommendation filed by ADF attorneys and its allies. After a public meeting the following month that attracted nearly 1,000 county residents in support of continuing the case, the board of commissioners voted in favor of filing the appeal with the 4th Circuit.

On the heels of a three-day call-in that shutdown several phone lines at the U. S. Department of Justice, the War on Illegal Pornography on Wednesday launched the “Petition the President and First Lady on Illegal Pornography Project.”

The goal of the effort is to gain the president’s support in urging the U.S. Attorney General to enforce existing obscenity laws and to gain the voice of the First Lady in defense of those harmed by illegal pornography.

“We are writing to you because we know that you, like all American parents, are concerned with the protection of your children from the scourge of sexual exploitation in our pornified society,” the letter begins.

The petition urges President Obama “to immediately order Attorney General Holder to begin vigorous prosecution of the major commercial producers and distributors of illegal hardcore obscene pornography.” The petition also asks the First Lady “to speak out for the dignity and respect of every women and child and help those exploited and harmed by pornography.”

“Attorney General Eric Holder has put a halt to new prosecutions against the commercial producers and distributors of illegal adult pornography despite admitting before a U. S. House hearing a week ago that such material is leading to human trafficking, violence against women, and child pornography,” says Patrick Trueman, president of Morality in Media, the lead organization in the War on Illegal Pornography Coalition.

Supporters are urged to go to the War on Illegal Pornography website and cyber-sign the petition at www.WarOnIllegalPornography.com/petition during the three-week campaign.

“We will personally deliver the petition to the White House at the end of the campaign,” says Trueman. “Thousands of Americans shut down phone lines at the Department of Justice to let the Attorney General Holder know we want our laws enforced. Now we will go over his head and get the attention of the White House.”

Here are three reasons why Harold
Camping’s end-times prediction should be ignored.

I spent the past week in
Guyana, a South American nation where the people are friendly, the food is
spicy and churches are growing at a healthy pace. But Christians there face a
serious challenge because of the sad legacy of Jim Jones, the American cult
leader who ordered his followers to drink poisoned Kool-Aid at their compound
in Jonestown in 1978. The mass suicide, which killed 909 people (including
Jones), went down in history as the world’s worst example of religion gone
wrong.

“Even today, the Jim
Jones tragedy poses a problem of credibility for us,” one pastor in the
city of Corriverton told me last week.

You can imagine my dismay
when I arrived in Guyana and learned that groups of Americans were combing the
streets and passing out literature claiming that Jesus will rapture the church
on May 21. These Christians apparently are so convinced of the prediction that
they traveled to the only English-speaking country in South America to deliver
a last-minute warning.

This outbreak of rapture
fever originated with Harold Camping, 89, a California-based Bible teacher who
says he figured out the date of Jesus’ return by studying the book of Daniel
and other biblical texts. Never mind that Jesus said no one would know the
timing of His return (see Matt. 24:36). And never mind that Camping has a bad
track record—he previously set Sept. 6, 1994, as the date for the Apocalypse.
Many gullible Christians are still willing to trust Camping’s instincts.

I cringed when I heard that
Americans were telling Guyanese people they have two weeks left before Jesus
arrives to take all true Christians to heaven. Camping’s followers also believe
the world will end in October. I’ve learned in the last week that many
believers have jumped on this bandwagon; they’ve put up billboards, purchased
TV ads, painted warnings on rooftops, issued radio alerts and flooded nations
with printed warnings.

I can’t compete with this doomsday madness,
but I can offer an appeal for sanity. Here are three reasons why we should not
spread Camping’s prediction:

1. It is a false prophecy. How can I say this with
assurance? Because Jesus Himself said all end-times date setting is strictly
off-limits. He told His disciples on the day He ascended: “It is not for
you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own
authority” (Acts 1:8, NASB). If it is not for us to know, then how does
Harold Camping know? Is he God? Only the worst form of spiritual pride would
lead a person to claim such knowledge.

2. Failed date-setting has
discredited Christians many times before. Why can’t we learn from history? William
Miller, the father of Seventh-day Adventism, was convinced that Jesus would
come back in 1844.  When his prediction
turned out to be bogus (a moment known as “the Great
Disappointment”), many disillusioned “Millerites” abandoned their faith.

Jehovah’s Witnesses taught that Jesus would begin His millennial
reign in 1914. When that didn’t happen, they pointed to the outbreak of World
War I and began teaching that this was the “beginning of the end.” A
few years later they moved the date to 1925. Nothing happened that year, but
more than a generation later they circulated the prediction that the world
would end in 1975. (They also taught that only Jehovah’s Witnesses would
survive a global holocaust.)

Recent history is littered
with more of these embarrassing predictions, including Jim Jones’ claim that
the world would end in nuclear war on July 15, 1967. Jones was a communist who
believed he was the reincarnation of Jesus, Buddha and Lenin, so Christians
didn’t take him seriously. But when a Christian layman, Edgar Whisenant, wrote 88
Reasons Why the Rapture Will Be in 1988, millions of believers bought it.
You won’t get much money for that book at a garage sale today.

3. End-times date-setting
hinders the cause of Christ. Just imagine what will go through the minds of
unbelievers on May 22, 2011. Christians told them Jesus would return, but He
didn’t. This will make followers of Christ look silly and unreliable.

As sincere as Camping’s devotees may be,
sincerity is no excuse for theological error. It is wrong-headed and
irresponsible for any Christian to tell an unbeliever when Jesus is coming back
or when the world will end. That is not the message we were commissioned to
preach. Dates and deadlines do not have the power to save souls—only the gospel
can do that.

When we share Christ with
others, we don’t need to provide a date for His Second Coming. Instead, we tell
them about the miracle of Calvary and remind them: “Today is the
day of salvation” (2 Cor. 6:2). No one knows when he will die; every new
day could be his last. And every person will stand before God when this life is
over.

There is urgency in the
gospel, for sure, but it is not about a countdown to the rapture. Hundreds of
thousands of people die every day without Jesus, whether or not He returns in
their generation. This alone should motivate us to avoid foolish distractions
and false prophecies so we can get busy with the task of genuine evangelism.

J. Lee Grady is contributing
editor of Charisma. You can follow him on Twitter.com leegrady. His newest book is 10 Lies Men Believe (Charisma House).

A 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on Tuesday challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare.

A Democratic-nominated three-judge panel listened to attorneys from both sides of the Liberty University v. Geithner case. Liberty University Counsel Mathew Staver contended that Congress lacks authority to regulate healthcare insurance purchase decisions.

“[This law] compels employees to contract with private companies for a benefit that has never been bargained for,” Staver said.

Representing Liberty University and two private individuals, Liberty Counsel’s case is the first private case filed as a federal lawsuit against the health insurance law. Liberty Counsel filed the lawsuit on March 23, 2010, the same day President Obama signed the healthcare bill into law. The Liberty Counsel case is the first challenge to the healthcare law to be argued at the appellate level.

Staver argued that the health insurance law makes reforms and forces everyone to participate by purchasing a certain kind of health insurance or paying a penalty. If the government has the ability to force unwilling participants to buy health insurance, Staver contended, then there is no limit on the government’s power.

“If you were to allow Congress to force the purchase of health insurance on the private market, you would therefore have to allow Congress to regulate the food industry to force certain kinds of food to be consumed,” Staver said.

Liberty Counsel’s case specifically argues that Congress lacks authority under the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Taxing and Spending Clause. Liberty Counsel raises additional constitutional objections, including the First Amendment Free Exercise of Religion, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the First Amendment Establishment Clause and the Fifth Amendment Equal Protection Clause.

The Liberty Counsel case was followed by oral argument in the case Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius, which is arguing against the same law. That case challenges the individual mandate, while Liberty University’s case challenges both the individual and the employer mandates. 

During oral argument, the Acting Solicitor General, who argued for the United States, acknowledged that the law was unprecedented. He also admitted that he believed Congress could force individuals to buy certain foods, like wheat. 

 “To hear the Acting Solicitor General admit that if the court upheld this massive health insurance law, then Congress could force individuals to purchase certain kinds of food was an astonishing, but true, admission. If ObamaCare is upheld, then Congress would no longer have any limitations on its regulatory power. Today it is health insurance, and tomorrow it could be food, transportation, or housing,” Staver says. “Big Brother would be able to be the CEO of every business and dictate our private choices. The implications are staggering. This law is the beginning of centralized government. The stakes in the outcome of this case could not be higher.”

“Based on the oral argument in court today, it seems highly likely that the three-judge court will uphold the Affordable Care Act’s individual responsibility provision. Like most federal district court decisions so far, it appears that the challenges to the new law will be rejected,” said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, who supports the legislation.

??“By upholding this provision and rejecting the politically motivated lawsuit, the judges are protecting insurance purchasers from paying much higher premiums to cover the health care costs of those who refuse to buy health insurance and don’t pay for the health care they inevitably receive.”

No matter which way the court rules, most legal experts agree that the Supreme Court will take the case because of its importance.

Moses was more than 80 years old when he climbed the mountain to meet God. So at 58, Charles Anderson didn’t think taking five million steps along the Appalachian Trail was too much, especially since he was on a mission for Jesus.

Anderson set out to section-hike the entire length of America’s most famous footpath for one simple reason: that’s where the youth are. Indeed, Anderson discovered that many of America’s youth were walking along the same path—and many of them are searching for the meaning of life. Anderson knew he had the answers they were looking for: Jesus Christ.

“I remember one young man who emerged from the fog near Neels Gap, Georgia,” recalls Anderson, a former missionary to France. “I recognized him as one of the hikers at a stone shelter to whom I had given a tract.”

The young man held up the tract and told Anderson he had read it—and he wanted to talk to him about it. For the next 20 minutes, Anderson shared God’s plan of salvation with the college student, as well as his personal testimony. At the end of the discourse, Anderson urged the young man to put his trust in Christ.

Although he didn’t get a decision just then, the young man promised to think about it—and he continued down the Appalachian Trail. Anderson continued along the trail too, and offers similar stories of his work spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ in his new book, “Beyond My Limits,” a book he hopes will encourage Christians “to get off their La-Z-Boys and on the trail.”

Many have questioned why Osama bin Laden’s body was buried at sea—some have even criticized the decision, especially in the wake of President Obama’s choice against showing photos of the terrorist leader’s corpse.

The Obama administration said bin Laden was buried at sea because no other country would take his body—and because Muslim law mandates burial within 24 hours.

Dr. Christian van Gorder, an associate professor of religion at Baylor University who teaches world religions, is familiar with the many different Muslim burial customs around the world. He has an interesting theory on why the U.S. decided to bury bin Laden at sea.

“Leaving aside all other religious considerations, it is my opinion that bin Laden’s burial at sea was designed to prevent his grave from becoming a holy site for terrorist sympathizers,” van Gorder says. “The speed of the burial also saved money and diminished possible security threats related to such a controversial person.”

Van Gorder says that Muslim burial traditions vary from region to region, and the Quran itself does not specify how to perform a burial.

Within the Arabian context—and keeping in mind that bin Laden is of Arabian descent—a burial may be performed at sea if the individual died at sea and is such a distance from land that he cannot be buried there within the guidelines of burial within 24 hours of death and before the first sundown following death.

“Because bin Laden was not killed on a ship, his at-sea burial would not be acceptable by strict Muslim standards,” van Gorder says. “However, Muslims are confident God is capable of preserving and then raising a body from the bottom of the sea for the day of final judgment.”

Does European law require the country to offer abortions to citizens from other European countries? Some seem to think so. That’s why the Alliance Defense Fund submitted a legal opinion to the Czech
Republic Ministry of Health Friday to dispell the notion.

It seems the Czech Parliament is considering whether to adopt legislation that would offer such abortions at inexpensive prices under the mistaken belief that binding interstate service provisions between European countries apply to abortion. But the reality is that the European Parliament and Council of Europe have made it clear that abortion is outside of their jurisdiction and is therefore not subject to the interstate service directives.

“No one should accept the falsehood that governments must offer abortions just because pro-abortion advocates want that to happen.  Neither European nor international law requires the Czech Republic to offer abortions,” says ADF Legal Counsel Roger Kiska, who is based in Europe. “Forcing this type of illegitimate cross-border recognition is something Americans have already seen attempted in laws related to health care and marriage.  It must be stopped wherever it rears its ugly head.”

The ADF legal opinion demonstrates that the European Parliament and the Council of Europe have themselves explained that they do not have any authority over member states with regard to abortion. Past resolutions by both bodies that have recommended easy and legal access to abortion throughout Europe were entirely non-binding opinions.

In 2006, the Council of Europe
itself explained, “The European Union treaties have not bestowed on the
Community or the Union the competence whereby the Union could regulate
on abortions. The Member
States thus have the competence to regulate on this and ensure
compliance in their territory with the laws that they pass.·The
EU cannot interfere in unsatisfactory states of affairs due to
differences in the legislation of Member States when it comes to areas
that are not within its competence.”

Later,
the Council clarified further, writing, “the issue of abortion from a
legal point of view falls under the competence of the individual Member
States.”

The resolutions “are not binding on the Member States of the EU or the Council of Europe or any other European institutions,” the ADF legal opinion explains. “Despite what some pressure groups may suggest, there is no such thing as a ‘right to abortion’ in international law or in European law …  Therefore, by restricting access to an abortion to certain people, a Member State should not be seen to be acting contrary to European law.”

The “warm heart of Africa.” It’s a nickname fitting for the people and gorgeous landscapes of Malawi.

It’s also a picture of the body of Christ there, where believers are passionate about Him and are doing what they can to take the gospel to those who have not heard it.

For Grace Ministries International, they’re seeing a rewarding change as a result of the team’s approach. According to Titus and Kristy Lloyd, God has been using the children’s ministry at Grace Church in Malawi to begin bringing both children and parents to Christ.

According to the Lloyds, working with children is seen as a punishment, culturally. Typically, leaders will get sent to work with children when they have done something wrong. Yet this age group is the focus of the 4/14 Window. The age when a person is most likely to come to Christ is between the ages of four and 14 years old. Changing this mindset has been a big challenge among the leadership at the church, and while there has been some success, there is still a ways to go.

The ministry is still fairly young. GMI began work in Malawi 11 years ago. Two Zambian Bible School graduates were sent as short-term missionaries. In January 2005, Rev. and Mrs. Kennedy Simtowe, GMI missionaries to Zambia, moved to Malawi to strengthen the work by establishing a training center and expanding the evangelistic outreach and church-planting ministries.

The Lloyds joined the team not long after and are working with the newly-formed National Council of Grace Churches in the areas of administration, finances and children’s ministries. Titus is working to establish the head office for the All Africa Grace Fellowship and Harvest Time Missions, as well as starting a computer school and Internet Cafe. Kristy is focused on home schooling their children and administration of the school in Senga Bay.

Several churches have been planted in Lilongwe and several elsewhere, plus 20 preaching points which will eventually become church plants. Keep praying for wisdom for the teams as they encounter cultural issues that interfere with outreach. Pray for vision and mission to move the church forward.

J Street, a controversial group that claims to represent the views of a large segment of the American Jewish and pro-Israel community, is sponsoring an event in Boca Raton, Fla. on Saturday night.

The purpose of the event: to call for the creation of a Palestinian state. J Street believes reaching a two-state solution is essential for Israel to live in peace. The event will take place at Congregation B’nai Israel at 7:30 pm.

“Ahead of the unilateral declaration at the UN on recognition of a Palestinian state this coming September, we find ourselves in a race against time to reach an agreement,” says J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami. “As Americans deeply committed to Israel’s security as a democracy and a Jewish homeland, we bring with us a sense of great urgency in calling on all parties to the conflict to take immediate steps to advance the peace process, and we stand determined to do our part in seeing a two-state solution achieved.”

Although J Street clams to represent the best interest of Jews, some Israel supporters are calling the group and its agenda “anti-Israel”—and they are planning to protest. Young Zionists and Tea Party Fort Lauderdale are banning together to hold a joint demonstration outside the J Street event tonight.

“There is chaos in the Middle East, Hamas is now teaming up with Fatah against Israel, soon-to-be nuclear Iran is threatening Israel’s annihilation, and all J Street is worried about is the creation of a Palestine,” says Joe Kaufman, a Young Zionists spokesman. “It is this type of dangerous obsession which motivates pro-terror groups and individuals against the Jewish state.”

Danita Kilcullen, director of Tea Party Fort Lauderdale, says his group is protesting to expose J Street’s radical views to the public: “More and more, Israel is under threat, and we’re not going to sit back and ignore the situation without having our voices heard.”

Jacob and Isabella are king and queen of the crib again this year.

This is the 12th year in a row on the Social Security Administration list of popular baby names the biblical name Jacob has ranked supreme—and the second for Isabella.

The only new name to crawl into the top 10 on either list this year is Aiden, which replaces Joshua on the boys’ side. But the overarching theme on this year’s list is indeed Bible names. Here are the top 10 boys and girls names for 2010:

Boys (in ranking order from one to 10): Jacob, Ethan, Michael, Jayden, William, Alexander, Noah, Daniel, Aden, and Anthony.

Girls (in ranking order from one to 10): Isabella, Sophia, Olivia, Ava, Emily, Abigail, Madison, Chloe, and Mia.

But for all the Bible names on the list, there is another disturbing trend: vampire movie star names continued ranking high for new babies. If you remember last year’s baby name craze around the “Twilight” novels and movies, it should come as no surprise that “Twilight” scores again this year.

The second fastest riser on the boys’ list is Kellan, the name of actor Kellan Lutz, best known for playing Emmett Cullen in the “Twilight” series.  Coming in third is Knox, one of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt’s toddler twins. On the girls’ side, Tiana, the name of the main character in the Disney movie, “The Princess and the Frog” and Disney’s first African-American princess, is one of the biggest chart hoppers.

A recent trend in the top girls’ names is a return to names that were popular in the early to mid-1900s. Names like Isabella, Ava, and Chloe, which had disappeared almost completely from the top 1,000 girls’ names, have surged in popularity in recent years, which suggests a trend in naming newborn girls after their grandmothers. 

And guess what? Elvis has left the building. Quicker than you can eat a fried peanut butter and banana sandwich, Elvis slipped out of the top 1,000 for the first time since 1954.

If you recently had a baby, how did you decide on the name?