SOUTHWEST AIRLINES INTRODUCING ' PORN PLANES ' ; PRAY AND MAKE A DIFFERENCE....

As part of a promotional deal with Sports Illustrated, Southwest Airlines has unveiled a Boeing 737 featuring a plane-sized seductive picture of string bikini-clad supermodel Bar Refaeli. Passengers are responding critically to this plane on Southwest's corporate blog, saying the picture is "soft porn" and offensive to families.

Michael Leahy, author of Porn Nation and the soon-to-be-released Porn University and Porn @ Work, is also critical of this decision by Southwest and of the underlying message it sends."I'm disappointed in Southwest Airlines' sexist display of soft-core pornography on its aircraft, as well as Sports Illustrated's continued objectification and sexualization of women," says Leahy.

"As a recovering sex addict and a former college athlete, I started losing respect for Sports Illustrated back when they first started publishing their sex-saturated swimsuit edition as an obvious effort to increase sales. I'm sure their tactic has worked handsomely, but sadly, at the expense of every self-respecting woman in America. This isn't art, and it sure has nothing to do with sports, unless they now consider sunbathing a sport.

" Some organizations, such as the American Family Association, have distributed newsletters urging all parents to send objection letters directly to Southwest. Leahy, a father and husband, agrees with this call to action. "I wonder what our children are thinking as they gaze through airport windows at this fine example of yet another major American corporation's lack of integrity and wholesale disrespect of women," Leahy continues.

"I hope every person who finds this offensive and finds themselves booked on this airline and certainly this airplane, refuses to board and demands that Southwest re-book them on a competitor's airline at Southwest's expense. Shame on you, Southwest. This isn't edgy. It's insulting."

PARENTS FACE PROSECUTION IN EAST LONDON OVER SCHOOL GAY WEEK PROTEST

Council bosses said the protest resulted in around 30 primary pupils missing school and had "taken action" against parents who pulled took their children out of George Tomlinson School in Leytonstone, east London, but refused to state what sanctions are being taken.
Pervez Latif, a 41-year-old accountant whose children Saleh, 10, and Abdurrahin, nine, attend the school, said his wife Shaheen, 38, was worried they could be taken to court.
He said: "My wife is very concerned she might be prosecuted.
"As yet we haven't heard anything from the council about whether they are taking action."
He said he knew of about 30 children who had been taken out of classes during the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Week after parents objected to their youngsters being encouraged to "celebrates the lives and achievements of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people in the community".
Under current laws parents can be prosecuted for failing to ensure their children attend school.
Mr Latif, from Leytonstone, said: "We were worried because weren't sure how they were going to teach our children these issues.
"We don't think it is necessary to teach it for a whole week and the children are so young. It is more appropriate for secondary school.
"Most children that age don't understand these things. When we took our children out of school we had to explain why - they didn't know what two parents the same sex meant."
A spokesman for Waltham Forest Council refused to reveal how many children missed lessons or what action would be taken against pupils but the council's website said parents of truant youngsters can be asked to sign a contract, given an on the spot fine or hauled into court.
The spokesman added: "As part of the borough's policy of promoting tolerance in our schools, children are taught that everyone in our society is of equal value.
"At George Tomlinson, parents were invited to meet with teachers and governors several weeks ago to discuss what work would be taking place throughout the national LGBT History Month, and how this work would be delivered.
"Regrettably, some parents chose to remove their children from school.
"The council does not condone any unauthorised absence from school and action has been taken."

ILLINOIS STATE BANS PRAYER AT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTION; PRAY AND MAKE A DIFFERENCE.....

The Illinois High School Association is being challenged on a policy that bans Christian schools from offering a prayer or any religious message over their public address systems when they host association events on their own property.
"It is blatantly unconstitutional for public school officials to come into private schools and enforce a policy prohibiting them from expressing what's central to their religious beliefs," said David Cortman, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, or ADF.
The ADF wrote this week to association chief Marty Hickman after several private schools complained about the new restrictions. WND left a message with Hickman seeking comment, but the call was not returned today.

"In enacting the policy, the IHSA was purportedly concerned that allowing private host schools to conduct customary pre-game prayers violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause," the letter said.
But the ADF reassured the assocation that the prayers are constitutional.
"To underscore this point, ADF makes the following offer: should the IHSA choose to rescind its new policy and go back to its neutral stance regarding the messages broadcast by private host schools over their public address systems, and a lawsuit is subsequently filed against the IHSA alleging an Establishment Clause violation, ADF would be willing to defend the IHSA free of charge in that lawsuit," said Cortman's letter.

However, if the policy is not rescinded, there also could be complications, the letter said.
"There is a strong likelihood that the IHSA's new policy violates the First Amendment rights of private Christian schools that host IHSA state series events," the letter said. "For this reason alone, and to avoid potentially needless litigation and a subsequent award of attorneys' fees, the IHSA should immediately rescind its new policy and continue to allow private host schools to conduct events as they have for years," Cortman said.
The ADF said the IHSA reportedly got "a few complaints from people who didn't like the prayers and religious announcements at the private schools," then came up with the new rule that prohibits "all prayer or religious messages" – even at private and Christian schools.
The letter explained there would be no possibility of a reasonable person thinking that a practice at an individual private school somehow was IHSA's attempt to establish religion.
"Directing where event attendees park their vehicles and sit in the stands, choosing who gets to sing the national anthem, promoting good sportsmanship and civility amongst participants and fans, providing concessions stands for food and refreshments – and yes, even what types of message are broadcast on the public address system before, during, and after games – these things are all part of how a particular school hosts an event conducted at its own facilities and on its own property," the letter said.
"Only an unreasonable and uninformed observer would take offense at a pre-game prayer at a private school that occurs as part of that school's customary procedures with no oversight by the IHSA," it continued.
"In fact, what the IHSA should be concerned about under these facts is not the appearance of impermissible endorsement, but rather that a reasonable observer would likely perceive hostility toward the religious speech and practices of private host schools," Cortman wrote. "You must keep in mind that Establishment Clause jurisprudence requires neutrality and forbids hostility toward religion."
Further, such bans on religious speech cannot be supported legally, ADF said.
"Even though private schools have well-settled constitutional free speech rights to express their religious mission and beliefs, the IHSA chooses to discriminate against these schools on the basis of the content and viewpoint of their speech by banning their prayer and religious messages. This is clearly at odds with established Supreme Court precedent," Cortman said.