A lesbian in Georgia went to a licenced counsellor seeking help on resolving a same-sex relationship problem. The counsellor happened to be a Christian whose religious convictions are opposed to homosexual behavior.
Rather than trying to convince the client that sexual relations with someone of the same sex is sin, the counsellor simply referred the client to another counsellor who was more sympathetic to same-sex relationships.
The lesbian returned the good will by filing a complaint against the Christian counsellor which resulted in the termination of the counsellor's employment (Alliance Defense Fund).
It seems that homosexuals who demand tolerance often need to practice what they preach.
Showing posts with label Homosexuality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Homosexuality. Show all posts
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Friday, July 11, 2008
Lawsuit against Zondervan
According to WoodTV 8 in Grand Rapids, MI:
Fowler wants and apology and $60 million for his “emotional duress and mental instability.”
According to A Greek Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by Walter Bauer, William Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich (a standard Greek lexicon) “arsenokoites” (arsenokoitai is a plural form) is “a male who practices homosexuality.”
Paul may have coined this word from two words that appear together in Leviticus 20:13 of the Septuagint (an ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament which was popular in Paul’s time). It says, “Whoever shall lie with a male as with a woman, they have both committed abomination, let them die the death, they are guilty.”
From a scholarly perspective, Mr. Fowler’s complaint is groundless. From a First Amendment perspective the lawsuit should be groundless as well. It is not only disturbing that Zondervan has to defend itself against such a frivolous lawsuit, but it should be a concern to all Americans who believe in freedom that Mr. Fowler wants the government, i.e. the courts, to rule on what is acceptable in a Bible translation. (Hat tip: Mitch H.)
Christian publisher Zondervan is facing a $60 million federal lawsuit filed by a man who claims he and other homosexuals have suffered based on what the suit claims is a misinterpretation of the Bible.The lawsuit centers on the translation of arsenokoitai in First Corinthians 6:9. Bradley Fowler, the man bringing the lawsuit, says “Zondervan Bibles published in 1982 and 1987 use the word homosexuals among a list of those who are "wicked" or "unrighteous" and won't inherit the kingdom of heaven.”
Fowler wants and apology and $60 million for his “emotional duress and mental instability.”
According to A Greek Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by Walter Bauer, William Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich (a standard Greek lexicon) “arsenokoites” (arsenokoitai is a plural form) is “a male who practices homosexuality.”
Paul may have coined this word from two words that appear together in Leviticus 20:13 of the Septuagint (an ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament which was popular in Paul’s time). It says, “Whoever shall lie with a male as with a woman, they have both committed abomination, let them die the death, they are guilty.”
From a scholarly perspective, Mr. Fowler’s complaint is groundless. From a First Amendment perspective the lawsuit should be groundless as well. It is not only disturbing that Zondervan has to defend itself against such a frivolous lawsuit, but it should be a concern to all Americans who believe in freedom that Mr. Fowler wants the government, i.e. the courts, to rule on what is acceptable in a Bible translation. (Hat tip: Mitch H.)
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Same-sex parents
According to Christian Newswire:
Trayce L. Hansen, Ph.D., a licensed psychologist, recently reviewed the available research on homosexually parented children and reports findings relevant to the same-sex marriage debate: Children raised by openly homosexual parents are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior themselves. And some self-described pro-homosexual researchers who uncovered such results attempted to conceal them by declaring that no differences were found.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Homosexuality and fascism
The folowing is an action alert from the FRC:
I might add that this is only the beginning if Barack Obama becomes President. Please go to the Family Research Council website and sign their petition.Stories of the homosexual lobby intimidating companies and individuals who stand up for man-woman marriage are becoming more and more common:
o In Massachusetts, during a petition drive to get a state marriage amendment on the ballot, homosexual activists called people who signed the petition and threatened them with lawsuits or worse.
0 Boston public school teachers were threatened with termination if they failed to portray so-called homosexual "marriage" in a positive light.
o Michigan's largest homosexual activist group says once marriage is legally redefined to include homosexual couples, business owners and even news media outlets that refuse to recognize such marriages should be jailed, or sued and "publicly slapped."
In California we are hearing similar stories, but now the intimidation tactics are being endorsed by one of the nation's largest unions -- the AFL-CIO. Homosexual advocates, with the powerful backing of national union leaders, are calling for a boycott of Bolthouse Farms, a California company that provides organic juices, lemonades, and smoothies to places like Whole Foods and other organic markets, simply because one of the minority owners donated money to the petition drive to put a marriage amendment on the ballot.
This is another harbinger of how homosexual activists want Christians who oppose homosexual "marriage" to be treated -- shut out of the public square with no recourse.
Please contact the national AFL-CIO to let it know such tactics are intolerable. As people of religious faith and moral conviction who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman -- we will not be silenced.
Gay pride in Boston
Mass Resistance has posted pictures of one of Boston’s gay pride week events. This event was apparently tame compared to the Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco. Even so, I agree with Mass Resistance that “Normal people wouldn't do any of this.”
Mass Resistance noted that “None of this was reported in any of the Boston area newspapers, TV networks, or radio stations - even though it was a very public event that blocked city streets for hours. Why?”
Could it be that the liberal media wants you to think that homosexuality is all about normal, everyday loving couples? Although such couples undoubtedly exist, showing parades like this one and the Folsom Street Fair would mess up their imaginary, politically correct image of homosexuality.
Mass Resistance noted that “None of this was reported in any of the Boston area newspapers, TV networks, or radio stations - even though it was a very public event that blocked city streets for hours. Why?”
Could it be that the liberal media wants you to think that homosexuality is all about normal, everyday loving couples? Although such couples undoubtedly exist, showing parades like this one and the Folsom Street Fair would mess up their imaginary, politically correct image of homosexuality.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Freedom of sexuality
Should Christians who voice opposition to homosexual behavior be in danger of arrest?
Should a man be allowed to use a woman’s locker if he perceives himself to be female? Should a private business owner, let’s say, a photographer, be fined or run out of business if it would violate his religious convictions to photograph a gay wedding?
In testimony before the Colorado House Judiciary Committee regarding the rights of homosexuals, bisexuals, transgendered and transsexual individuals, the executive director of the ACLU said,
I wonder why Ms. ACLU didn’t say, “One may practice their sexuality in private; however, there are limitations of how people can express their sexuality in public.”
After all, we have a constitutional right to freedom of religion (religion that can only be practiced in private is not freedom of religion). There is no constitutional right to the public display of one’s sexuality or perceived gender.
In true Orwellian fashion, the Left is systematically undermining freedom of religion, and out of thin air they are creating an even higher right, a right that trumps both freedom of speech and freedom of religion: The freedom of sexuality.
And Barack Obama supports it.
Should a man be allowed to use a woman’s locker if he perceives himself to be female? Should a private business owner, let’s say, a photographer, be fined or run out of business if it would violate his religious convictions to photograph a gay wedding?
In testimony before the Colorado House Judiciary Committee regarding the rights of homosexuals, bisexuals, transgendered and transsexual individuals, the executive director of the ACLU said,
"One may practice one's religion in private; however, once a religious person
comes into the public arena, there are limitations in how the expression of
their religion impacts others," (WorldNetDaily).
I wonder why Ms. ACLU didn’t say, “One may practice their sexuality in private; however, there are limitations of how people can express their sexuality in public.”
After all, we have a constitutional right to freedom of religion (religion that can only be practiced in private is not freedom of religion). There is no constitutional right to the public display of one’s sexuality or perceived gender.
In true Orwellian fashion, the Left is systematically undermining freedom of religion, and out of thin air they are creating an even higher right, a right that trumps both freedom of speech and freedom of religion: The freedom of sexuality.
And Barack Obama supports it.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Pastor Stephen Boissoin responds
Yesterday I posted on Pastor Steve Boissoin and his trouble with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Pastor Boissoin responded to my post and has convinced me that he does not in any way advocate violence against gays and that he has been railroaded by this Canadian Human Rights Commission which is a serious threat to freedom of speech and freedom of religion in Canada. Pastor Boissoin, I sincerely apologize for misunderstanding you and the reports about you, and for adding to your anxiety with my post.
I've posted Pastor Boissoin's initial response below but you can read all of his responses by referring to yesterday's post. Pastor Boissoin wrote:
I've posted Pastor Boissoin's initial response below but you can read all of his responses by referring to yesterday's post. Pastor Boissoin wrote:
Friend,You have your facts totally wrong and you obviously haven't researched the story and due to such are guilty of the same type of irresponsibilty you accuse me of.Here is some information to consider.
1. The boy that was assaulted never went to the police.
2. There was no investigation and I never even heard a peep about the supposed assault from the police who I was involved with on almost a daily basis. I heard about it, like everyone else when it was in the newspaper over two weeks later.
3. The Publisher of the Red Deer Advocate informed me that the boy came to them about the story.
Think about this for a minute, while a heated gay debate is going on in my community a gay teen goes to the paper and claims he was beaten for being gay. He claims he is fearful but still allows the newspaper to publish his story (he provides no witnesses) and he does NOT go to the police. Think: he is ok with his story and his picture being in the paper, admittedly afraid but will not go to the police. There is simply no way to verify if this is even a valid story. This teen did not appear at the hearing as a witness...he did not ask a representative to appear on his behalf...he did not forward a written statement yet the complainant against me was allowed to use this unsubstantiated story as 'evidence.'
At the hearing there was a witness for the complainant, while a participant on a employability skills grant at our facility, she THOUGHT she heard me say that I knew who did it and speculated that I allowed them to continue participating in our program. Before God Almighty, this was absolutely false. I have never known who did it nor am I sure it ever happened.
The facts:1. I did not EVER know who committed the supposed assault and still do not know today. Nor do the police as my understanding is there was no ivestigation.
2. The witness may have overheard me guessing because afterall we were a at-risk
youth ministry and troubled street teens attended.3. I was part of the inception of the RCMP's Restorative Justice. To accuse me of such a thing is absolutely ridiculous. Colleagues that know me laugh is disbelief.
4. I had a very good reputation with my community's social care organizations, Probation Officers, the Police (even judges), lawyers and was a voluteer for the RCMP. Most important, I had very good relationships with teens, gay or straight and every single one of them that knows me, knows that I would protect them from harm, regardless of their sexual orientation. Here is what the gay teens and young adults that I worked with think of me http://www.stephenboissoin.com/custom.html
5. I gave my life saving to at-risk youth outreach. I have performed teen memorial services and had over 25 teens live with me...gay and straight. I gave my whole heart to youth work. This accusation is pure garbage. Friend, don't just throw something up on your BLOG for the sake of appearing to be in the know about current events. You are way off on this one. The Human Rights Commission hearing was a farce and things that were accepted by them would suffer a different result in a real court of
law.....which is exactly where we are taking this.I encourage you to read the information on the following link
http://www.stephenboissoin.com/defamation.htmlI submit this to you with the hope
that you will be honourable and care for the TRUTH.Stephen Boissoinhttp://www.stephenboissoin.com
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Pastor Stephen Boissoin on trial
A Canadian pastor named Stephen Boissoin has been on trial for violating Canada’s Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act (2000).
According to most Right wing blogs and news sources I’ve read, the pastor’s crime was that he sent a letter opposing homosexuality to his local newspaper. And even though Canada’s Human Rights Act specifically says, "Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of opinion on any subject," the pastor has spent the last four years having to defend himself in court.
This is one of those cases where I would normally be ranting and raving about the horrible abuse of a pastor’s right to express his faith.
Unfortunately, the right wing sources I’ve read are not telling the whole story (I know my left wing readers are going to take delight in rubbing this one in). Anyway, the pastor’s letter included the phrase, “It is time to stand together and take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness…” (emphasis mine).
The pastor should have qualified his statement by saying “…legal and non-violent steps.” I would like to think this was just an oversight on his part but the facts of the case lead me to think otherwise.
Not long after the pastor’s letter was published, some kid shattered another kid’s cheek bone saying, “you’re a faggot, right?” As it turns out, the perpetrator was someone who often frequented the pastor’s youth center.
Now this wouldn’t necessarily mean anything except that in this case, according to court testimony, when the pastor found out about the assault, not only did he take no action to suspend the perpetrator from the youth center (the normal procedure when violence occurs), but the pastor was reported (under oath) to have said, “God called him to be active with his beliefs.”
Excuse me? God called some punk to smack someone in the face just because he was gay?! If the pastor really said this, something is seriously wrong with this pastor’s theology!
This pastor should have:
1) explained to the offender that the Bible never allows us to take the law into our own hands by persecuting someone for their sexual orientation or sexual behavior,
2) explained that we are to show Christ’s love even to those who behave in ways we think are sinful,
3) suggested that the offender needs to seek forgiveness and possibly even make restitution to the one he assaulted and
4) suspended the offender in accordance with youth center policy.
I'm afraid I have to break ranks with some of my fellow conservatives on this one. If the court records are accurate, I think this pastor's statements above were unbiblical and irresponsible.
According to most Right wing blogs and news sources I’ve read, the pastor’s crime was that he sent a letter opposing homosexuality to his local newspaper. And even though Canada’s Human Rights Act specifically says, "Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of opinion on any subject," the pastor has spent the last four years having to defend himself in court.
This is one of those cases where I would normally be ranting and raving about the horrible abuse of a pastor’s right to express his faith.
Unfortunately, the right wing sources I’ve read are not telling the whole story (I know my left wing readers are going to take delight in rubbing this one in). Anyway, the pastor’s letter included the phrase, “It is time to stand together and take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness…” (emphasis mine).
The pastor should have qualified his statement by saying “…legal and non-violent steps.” I would like to think this was just an oversight on his part but the facts of the case lead me to think otherwise.
Not long after the pastor’s letter was published, some kid shattered another kid’s cheek bone saying, “you’re a faggot, right?” As it turns out, the perpetrator was someone who often frequented the pastor’s youth center.
Now this wouldn’t necessarily mean anything except that in this case, according to court testimony, when the pastor found out about the assault, not only did he take no action to suspend the perpetrator from the youth center (the normal procedure when violence occurs), but the pastor was reported (under oath) to have said, “God called him to be active with his beliefs.”
Excuse me? God called some punk to smack someone in the face just because he was gay?! If the pastor really said this, something is seriously wrong with this pastor’s theology!
This pastor should have:
1) explained to the offender that the Bible never allows us to take the law into our own hands by persecuting someone for their sexual orientation or sexual behavior,
2) explained that we are to show Christ’s love even to those who behave in ways we think are sinful,
3) suggested that the offender needs to seek forgiveness and possibly even make restitution to the one he assaulted and
4) suspended the offender in accordance with youth center policy.
I'm afraid I have to break ranks with some of my fellow conservatives on this one. If the court records are accurate, I think this pastor's statements above were unbiblical and irresponsible.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
The world AIDS pandemic
The threat of a worldwide AIDS pandemic is over. So says Kevin de Cock, the head of the World Health Organization’s department of HIV/AIDS. According to The Independent:
While the the estimated number of deaths of persons with AIDS in the United States and dependent areas was 14,627 in 2006, the number of deaths from Heart disease = 652,091, from cancer = 559,312, from stroke = 143,579, from diabetes = 75,119, from Alzheimer's = 71,599 (Source: Deaths: Final Data for 2005, Table C).
According to the National Institutes of Health, in 2007 the N.I.H. spent 2.1 billion for heart disease but 2.9 billion for HIV/AIDS.
2.1 billion for Heart disease that kills 650,091 per year.
2.9 billion for HIV/AIDS that kills 14,627 per year.
Looks to me like this is much more about power, politics and political correctness than it is about compassion for people.
Dr De Cock, an epidemiologist who has spent much of his career leading the battle against the disease, said understanding of the threat posed by the virus had changed. Whereas once it was seen as a risk to populations everywhere, it was now recognised that, outside sub-Saharan Africa, it was confined to high-risk groups including men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and sex workers and their clients.Many believe that there never was a widespread heterosexual threat and that the myth of heterosexual AIDS was just a big lie in order to get a disproportionate amount of money when compared to the leading causes of death.
While the the estimated number of deaths of persons with AIDS in the United States and dependent areas was 14,627 in 2006, the number of deaths from Heart disease = 652,091, from cancer = 559,312, from stroke = 143,579, from diabetes = 75,119, from Alzheimer's = 71,599 (Source: Deaths: Final Data for 2005, Table C).
According to the National Institutes of Health, in 2007 the N.I.H. spent 2.1 billion for heart disease but 2.9 billion for HIV/AIDS.
2.1 billion for Heart disease that kills 650,091 per year.
2.9 billion for HIV/AIDS that kills 14,627 per year.
Looks to me like this is much more about power, politics and political correctness than it is about compassion for people.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Lesbian artificial insemination
Should Christian, Jewish or Muslim doctors be forced to artificially inseminate lesbians? Two Christian doctors decided that to do so would violate their religious convictions (CNSNews).
Although she undoubtedly had dozens, if not hundreds of other doctors to choose from, one lesbian decided to sue her Christian doctors for refusing to artificially inseminate her. This lesbian would undoubtedly demand "tolerance" for her own lifestyle choices, but she refuses to exhibit tolerance toward the doctors who disagree with her.
To force doctors to perform procedures that violate their religious convictions is not only a violation of the first amendment, it is tyranny! When Barack Obama becomes president, you can expect much more of the same.
Although she undoubtedly had dozens, if not hundreds of other doctors to choose from, one lesbian decided to sue her Christian doctors for refusing to artificially inseminate her. This lesbian would undoubtedly demand "tolerance" for her own lifestyle choices, but she refuses to exhibit tolerance toward the doctors who disagree with her.
To force doctors to perform procedures that violate their religious convictions is not only a violation of the first amendment, it is tyranny! When Barack Obama becomes president, you can expect much more of the same.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
ENDA and Religious liberty
There seems to be a lot of confusion about ENDA, the “Employer Non-Discrimination Act." ENDA makes it unlawful for an employer to “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual… because of such individual's actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity…”
From a Christian perspective we should admit that the Bible knows nothing of modern discussions about “sexual orientation.” Leviticus 18:22, for example, discusses behavior, not sexual identity: “You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.”
Similarly, St. Paul, in his letter to the Romans, writes in terms of behavior, “For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature,” and “men committing shameless acts with men.” You could say that sexual orientation, on the other hand, is about temptation, and temptation by itself is not necessarily sin.
Therefore, if I were the president of a Christian College, or the CEO of a Christian charity, for example, I would have no problem hiring a homosexual as long as 1) he or she sincerely agreed with our doctrinal position including the sincere belief that having sex with someone of the same sex is an abominable sin before God, and 2) he or she had a long track record of abstinence from all such activity.
The problem is that under ENDA Christian organizations would not be allowed to make these qualifications. If an otherwise qualified history teacher, for example, applied for a teaching position, the Christian organization would not be allowed to turn the applicant down even if the applicant was a practicing homosexual and a radical gay rights activist. To require Christian organizations to hire people who disagree with their doctrinal position is not freedom of religion, it is tyranny!
Later, the Act goes on to discuss exemptions:
"(a) In General- This Act shall not apply to any of the employment practices of a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society which has as its primary purpose religious ritual or worship or the teaching or spreading of religious doctrine or belief."
Under ENDA, lawyers for gay rights activists will argue that Christians Colleges and Christian schools are primarily for education of students (especially if the colleges are liberal arts colleges), and that the spreading of religious doctrine is not primary. These lawyers will argue that Christian charities are primarily about providing food and shelter or adoption, or counseling, etc., and are only secondarily about spreading Christian doctrine.
Christians will end up spending millions of dollars that could go for helping others or for education, just to defend themselves from endless lawsuits by gay activists whose hatred against Christianity knows no bounds. Many Christian organizations will simply go out of business because they can’t afford the litigation. And those who support Barack Obama are supporting this!
ENDA continues:
"(b) Certain Employees- For any religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society that is not wholly exempt under subsection (a), this Act shall not apply with respect to the employment of individuals whose primary duties consist of teaching or spreading religious doctrine or belief, religious governance, supervision of a religious order, supervision of persons teaching or spreading religious doctrine or belief, or supervision or participation in religious ritual or worship."
This means that in Christian schools, colleges, and charitable organizations, the only people ENDA exempts are those who actually teach religious doctrine or those who directly supervise them. It does not exempt teachers of English, science, history, social sciences, etc. Nor does it exempt administrators like directors or vice presidents.
So in other words, Christian Colleges, schools and charitable organizations will be forced by law to hire teachers and even upper level administrators who believe that sexual acts between people of the same sex is perfectly OK. If the homosexual employee later gets fired for promoting homosexuality, they can sue the organization for wrongful termination under ENDA. Whether they win or not, the Christian organization will spend a small fortune to defend itself and some will go out of business. And Christians who support Barack Obama are supporting this!
ENDA continues:
"Conformity to Religious Tenets- Under this Act, a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society may require that applicants for, and employees in, similar positions conform to those religious tenets that such corporation, association, institution, or society declares significant…”
This sounds like it would allow employers to enforce a code of conduct but that doesn’t really resolve the issue. If a well qualified homosexual activist applied for a vice president’s position in a Christian organization, the organization would be forced by law to hire that person even if the applicant strongly opposed the organization's position on homosexuality.
Once hired, if the new employee began advocating for homosexuality on the job and were fired, they could sue the organization. Whether they won or not, it would cost the organization a small fortune to defend themselves. And those who support Barack Obama are supporting this!
Contrary to popular belief, ENDA does not exempt religious organizations. It exempts teachers of theology and preachers but not much else. It would have been a very simple matter for the author(s) and sponsors of ENDA--as a matter of religious freedom--to simply provide complete and total exemption for all religious colleges, schools, missions and charities. In fact, if the bill had been written to provide such exemptions, I doubt that it would receive much opposition from religious groups at all. But the sponsors chose not to provide such exemptions because they do not want religious organizations to be exempt.
Make no mistake about it—ENDA is an all-out full fledged attack on American religious liberty! And Barack Obama supports ENDA.
From a Christian perspective we should admit that the Bible knows nothing of modern discussions about “sexual orientation.” Leviticus 18:22, for example, discusses behavior, not sexual identity: “You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.”
Similarly, St. Paul, in his letter to the Romans, writes in terms of behavior, “For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature,” and “men committing shameless acts with men.” You could say that sexual orientation, on the other hand, is about temptation, and temptation by itself is not necessarily sin.
Therefore, if I were the president of a Christian College, or the CEO of a Christian charity, for example, I would have no problem hiring a homosexual as long as 1) he or she sincerely agreed with our doctrinal position including the sincere belief that having sex with someone of the same sex is an abominable sin before God, and 2) he or she had a long track record of abstinence from all such activity.
The problem is that under ENDA Christian organizations would not be allowed to make these qualifications. If an otherwise qualified history teacher, for example, applied for a teaching position, the Christian organization would not be allowed to turn the applicant down even if the applicant was a practicing homosexual and a radical gay rights activist. To require Christian organizations to hire people who disagree with their doctrinal position is not freedom of religion, it is tyranny!
Later, the Act goes on to discuss exemptions:
"(a) In General- This Act shall not apply to any of the employment practices of a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society which has as its primary purpose religious ritual or worship or the teaching or spreading of religious doctrine or belief."
Under ENDA, lawyers for gay rights activists will argue that Christians Colleges and Christian schools are primarily for education of students (especially if the colleges are liberal arts colleges), and that the spreading of religious doctrine is not primary. These lawyers will argue that Christian charities are primarily about providing food and shelter or adoption, or counseling, etc., and are only secondarily about spreading Christian doctrine.
Christians will end up spending millions of dollars that could go for helping others or for education, just to defend themselves from endless lawsuits by gay activists whose hatred against Christianity knows no bounds. Many Christian organizations will simply go out of business because they can’t afford the litigation. And those who support Barack Obama are supporting this!
ENDA continues:
"(b) Certain Employees- For any religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society that is not wholly exempt under subsection (a), this Act shall not apply with respect to the employment of individuals whose primary duties consist of teaching or spreading religious doctrine or belief, religious governance, supervision of a religious order, supervision of persons teaching or spreading religious doctrine or belief, or supervision or participation in religious ritual or worship."
This means that in Christian schools, colleges, and charitable organizations, the only people ENDA exempts are those who actually teach religious doctrine or those who directly supervise them. It does not exempt teachers of English, science, history, social sciences, etc. Nor does it exempt administrators like directors or vice presidents.
So in other words, Christian Colleges, schools and charitable organizations will be forced by law to hire teachers and even upper level administrators who believe that sexual acts between people of the same sex is perfectly OK. If the homosexual employee later gets fired for promoting homosexuality, they can sue the organization for wrongful termination under ENDA. Whether they win or not, the Christian organization will spend a small fortune to defend itself and some will go out of business. And Christians who support Barack Obama are supporting this!
ENDA continues:
"Conformity to Religious Tenets- Under this Act, a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society may require that applicants for, and employees in, similar positions conform to those religious tenets that such corporation, association, institution, or society declares significant…”
This sounds like it would allow employers to enforce a code of conduct but that doesn’t really resolve the issue. If a well qualified homosexual activist applied for a vice president’s position in a Christian organization, the organization would be forced by law to hire that person even if the applicant strongly opposed the organization's position on homosexuality.
Once hired, if the new employee began advocating for homosexuality on the job and were fired, they could sue the organization. Whether they won or not, it would cost the organization a small fortune to defend themselves. And those who support Barack Obama are supporting this!
Contrary to popular belief, ENDA does not exempt religious organizations. It exempts teachers of theology and preachers but not much else. It would have been a very simple matter for the author(s) and sponsors of ENDA--as a matter of religious freedom--to simply provide complete and total exemption for all religious colleges, schools, missions and charities. In fact, if the bill had been written to provide such exemptions, I doubt that it would receive much opposition from religious groups at all. But the sponsors chose not to provide such exemptions because they do not want religious organizations to be exempt.
Make no mistake about it—ENDA is an all-out full fledged attack on American religious liberty! And Barack Obama supports ENDA.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Jailed or sued and publicly slapped
According to American's for Truth:
Why is quoting this article a "great lie about gay people"? It was written by a gay person! The first line reads, "This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor."
Somehow the fact that it was not intended to be taken literally does not comfort me. If the religious right published such a hate-filled diatribe they would not be let off the hook simply because they prefaced their hate-speech with a line that said it was "an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy..."
I think everyone needs to understand that gay people, like most other groups, are a diverse bunch. Some are hardworking, compassionate individuals who believe in freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and are not interested in forcing everyong else to accept their lifestyle.
But on the other end of the spectrum are some very hateful and psychologically disturbed individuals...
the kind who create pictures of the last supper using sadomasochistic imagery,
or who who mock Christianity with similar sadomasochistic symbols at the Folsom Street Fair
or who dress up like nuns to mock the Catholic church
or who get sexual pleasure out of mock (or real) torture,
or who are so sexually obsessed they will have literally dozens or even hundreds of sex partners during their life,
or who like some in Michigan's largest homosexual activist group, who really do want to shut down the freedom of speech for those who disagree with them (See here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here and here).
No one wants to address this group because it is politically incorrect to do so and becauase the radical gays have intimidated everyone with cries of "homophobe" and "bigot." Instead, what we see from Hollywood and the media is the gay couple who have have lived happily ever after--like a gay version of Ozzie and Harriet--for years and years.
But when Barack Obama becomes President and begins pushing his pro-homosexual agenda (e.g. ENDA and the repeal of DOMA), it is people like the spokesman for the Michigan homosexual group who will rear their ugly heads as Christian Colleges, Christian schools, Christian missions, Christian shelters, Christian adoption agencies--maybe even journalists and bloggers--began to get "publicly slapped," intimidated into silence, or sued out of existence.
To think that there are actually Christians who will vote for Barack Obama just boggles the mind!
Michigan’s largest homosexual activist group says once marriage is legallyThis reminds me of something I once read by Michael Swift first published in the "Gay Revolutionary" but reprinted in the Conressional Record (I first read it in something called the NFD Journal, October 1987). You can read the entire article at a website hosted by Fordham University. Exerpts appear below:
redefined to include homosexual couples, business owners and even news media
outlets who refuse to recognize such marriages should be jailed or sued and
“publicly slapped,”
On the Fordham website, the introduction to this article says, "But when the religious rights [sic]cites this text, they always omit, as does the Congressional record, the vital first line, which sets the context for the piece. In other words, every other version of this found on the net is part of the radical right's great lie about gay people."We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together.
All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men.
We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.
If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies.
The family unit-spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence--will be abolished.
All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men.
All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men.
Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.
Why is quoting this article a "great lie about gay people"? It was written by a gay person! The first line reads, "This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor."
Somehow the fact that it was not intended to be taken literally does not comfort me. If the religious right published such a hate-filled diatribe they would not be let off the hook simply because they prefaced their hate-speech with a line that said it was "an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy..."
I think everyone needs to understand that gay people, like most other groups, are a diverse bunch. Some are hardworking, compassionate individuals who believe in freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and are not interested in forcing everyong else to accept their lifestyle.
But on the other end of the spectrum are some very hateful and psychologically disturbed individuals...
the kind who create pictures of the last supper using sadomasochistic imagery,
or who who mock Christianity with similar sadomasochistic symbols at the Folsom Street Fair
or who dress up like nuns to mock the Catholic church
or who get sexual pleasure out of mock (or real) torture,
or who are so sexually obsessed they will have literally dozens or even hundreds of sex partners during their life,
or who like some in Michigan's largest homosexual activist group, who really do want to shut down the freedom of speech for those who disagree with them (See here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here and here).
No one wants to address this group because it is politically incorrect to do so and becauase the radical gays have intimidated everyone with cries of "homophobe" and "bigot." Instead, what we see from Hollywood and the media is the gay couple who have have lived happily ever after--like a gay version of Ozzie and Harriet--for years and years.
But when Barack Obama becomes President and begins pushing his pro-homosexual agenda (e.g. ENDA and the repeal of DOMA), it is people like the spokesman for the Michigan homosexual group who will rear their ugly heads as Christian Colleges, Christian schools, Christian missions, Christian shelters, Christian adoption agencies--maybe even journalists and bloggers--began to get "publicly slapped," intimidated into silence, or sued out of existence.
To think that there are actually Christians who will vote for Barack Obama just boggles the mind!
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Same sex marriage in California
Just in from FRC Action:
After a brief period of judicial restraint, California voters watched in horror this afternoon as judicial activism returned with a vengeance in one of the most egregious rulings in American jurisprudence. It took just four activist judges to overturn the historical definition of marriage, not to mention the vote of more than four and a half million Californians, as the state supreme court issued a much-anticipated ruling on the question of same-sex "marriage." By a 4-3 margin, the justices struck down a law, adopted by 61 percent of voters in 2000, which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. By imposing same-sex "marriage" on voters, the California Supreme Court knowingly usurped the right of the people to effect change in public policy.
ENDA
I just received this e-mail from Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council:
Click here to contact your congressperson.
UPDATE: I just sent the following e-mail to my U.S. Senator:
Please oppose the ENDA bill unless it is revised to provide total exemption for all religious organizations (schools, churches, synagogues, mission organizations, religious social service organizations etc).
The very limited protection for churches and schools in the current bill does not protect Freedom of Religion.
FRC and pro-family Americans face a grave and immediate challenge-and we need your help now to defend our faith, families, and freedom.
Led by Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Senate liberals are poised to renew their push for passage of a bill that will turn the federal government into a weapon to beat churches and employers into accepting homosexual behavior as normal-even good.
Under the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), the government will no longer be a neutral observer. Instead, it will become a tool that homosexual activists will use-at taxpayer expense-to torment employers and co-workers who object to their lifestyle.
Please act now! Ted Kennedy and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) could
bring up ENDA for a Senate vote soon!
If ENDA becomes law, the victims of its government-sponsored harassment churches, religious schools, and private employers-will have to choose . . . . .either abandon their religious convictions or face financial ruin defending themselves.
Some states already are tormenting private employers on behalf of homosexuals!
New Mexico authorities fined a wedding photographer nearly $7,000 because she
remained faithful to her Christian values rather than photograph a lesbian's
"commitment ceremony!"Kodak fired a loyal 21-year employee who objected to pro-homosexual indoctrination and refused to attend "diversity" re-education.
Sandia National Laboratories forced Christian workers to remove Bible verses and Photos of their traditional families so that homosexual employees wouldn't be offended.
ENDA would create a federal version of these policies-and a national nightmare that would force people of faith to abandon their values . . . or face harsh discipline!
Your support for FRC now will help our respected, influential experts expose the
dangers of such legislation on Capitol Hill. ENDA has been stopped before. It must be
stopped now.
Click here to contact your congressperson.
UPDATE: I just sent the following e-mail to my U.S. Senator:
Please oppose the ENDA bill unless it is revised to provide total exemption for all religious organizations (schools, churches, synagogues, mission organizations, religious social service organizations etc).
The very limited protection for churches and schools in the current bill does not protect Freedom of Religion.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Men in women's restrooms
From Americans for Truth:
You can expect much more of this when Obama becomes president.
“By the stroke of a very powerful pen, County Executive Leggett has broken the biological barriers that separate male and female facilities. No longer will women and girls be able to feel completely safe in the most private and personal bathroom and locker facilities of schools, public pools, malls, stores, health clubs, restaurants and other such public places throughout the county. County Executive Ike Leggett signed Bill 23-07, the outrageous legislation that may result in forcing even religious schools to hire transgender teachers; and then also allow cross-dressing but biological males in your daughter’s school locker room. Maryland Citizens for a Responsible Government has filed a referendum to prevent the implementation of Bill 23-07.
We are calling on every concerned Montgomery County citizen to join us in this
huge undertaking.”
You can expect much more of this when Obama becomes president.
Sunday, May 04, 2008
Shutting down free speech at Smith College
In response to the lesbian activists who shut down a speech at Smith College, Peter LaBarbera from Americans for Truth writes:
Traditionalists and people of faith should take great courage from the homosexual side’s totalitarian tendencies. This is no “civil rights” movement but a sexual special interest lobby espousing — with all the assurance of a fundamentalist — doctrines that run counter to natural law, healthy living, and Judeo-Christian history. Which is another way of saying that they are at war with truth.
Communists and fascists censor advocates of democratic freedom and independent religion. Darwinists expel critics of evolution from the academy. Officially pro-homosexual governments in Britain, Canada and other countries persecute Christians who voice their Biblical belief that homosexuality is a changeable sin. And radical homosexualists here in the USA trample on the rights of those who dare question the tenets of their activist movement, which is all of 100-plus years old (German “sexologist” Magnus Hirschfeld).
Take heart: people confident in their ideas don’t storm opponents’ speeches. Rather, they listen intently to them, and then present another viewpoint to compete in the marketplace of ideas. In the long run, homosexualists can’t compete with truth, and they seem to know it.
Saturday, May 03, 2008
American Psychiatric Association panel cancelled
According to the Washington Times, the American Psychiatric Association had scheduled a panel discussion on homosexuality. The panel was assembled by "David Scasta, a former APA president and a gay psychiatrist."
When gay activists, however, discovered that Dr. Scasta had included two Evangelicals on the panel, the gaycitynews and The Blade came out with articles condemning the program and soon the program was cancelled under the pressure from gays.
What are they afraid of? Is their position so intellectually weak that they can't even tolerate a balanced discussion of the issues? This is just one more case in which the fascist nature of some radical gay-rights organizations is exposed for what it is. They don't want tolerance. They don't want discussion. Its their way or no way.
When gay activists, however, discovered that Dr. Scasta had included two Evangelicals on the panel, the gaycitynews and The Blade came out with articles condemning the program and soon the program was cancelled under the pressure from gays.
What are they afraid of? Is their position so intellectually weak that they can't even tolerate a balanced discussion of the issues? This is just one more case in which the fascist nature of some radical gay-rights organizations is exposed for what it is. They don't want tolerance. They don't want discussion. Its their way or no way.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Freedom of speech attacked on campus
Yesterday I received a newsletter entitled “Silencing Faith on Campus” which said:
The newsletter also listed other examples of blatant anti-Christian attacks in our publically funded universities: “At Savannah State, members of a Christian club were put on suspension for washing each other’s feet during a worship service—school officials called that ‘hazing’ and harassment.” [Isn’t it interesting how some state colleges are using tax payer money to fund Muslim footwashing facilities, but when Christians do it, its is “hazing.”]
“At the University of Wisconsin—Superior, administrators denied InterVarsity Christian Felloswhip…access to campus facilities after accusing the members of violating the school ‘anti-discrimination’ policy by not allowing non-Christians to serve in leadership positions.” [Hmmm, I wonder if the brilliant administrators at the U. of Wisconsin required Muslim groups to have Christian leaders or for Atheist groups to have Muslim leaders, or for Democratic groups to have Republican leaders! How stupid—or hateful—can some people get?]
“At the University of Wisconsin—Eau Claire, university officials forbade RAs…to lead a Bible study—even with just one other person—in their own dorm room. (Beer parties were permitted.)”
The newsletter said that “In at least 230 public universities across the country, institutional policies are in effect that can sharply curtail Christian activity and limit the spread of the Gospel."
It is amazing that university officials, who undoubtedly think of themselves as tolerant and liberal-minded, can be so intolerant, hateful, and un-liberal. It is also amazing that we have such full-blown assault on freedom of speech and freedom of religion going on in state-run institutions, and yet the major media outlets are totally asleep at the switch.
Fortunately, Alliance Defense Fund is helping to fight such university fascism. If you give to charity, the Alliance Defense Fund is a worthy organization.
Five years ago, Emily Brooker enrolled at Missouri State University (MSU) to study social work. For her, college was a time of spiritual growth and testing that climaxed during her last semester, when her professors ordered Emily’s class to become “lobbyists” for homosexual behavior by writing letters to the Missouri legislature, encouraging lawmakers to recognize adoption by same-sex couples. Emily respectfully asked for an alternative assignment, explaining to her professor that this one ran counter to her deep religious beliefs. The request was not well received. Her professor filed a ‘level 3’ grievance against Emily—the stiffest charge a faculty member can make against a student.”The committee apparently had the authority to not only fail her in the class, but to keep her from graduating. Fortunately, the Alliance Defense Fund stepped and put a stop to it.
“To answer the grievance, Emily was required to appear alone—no parents, no lawyer—before a department ‘ethics’ committee.”
The newsletter also listed other examples of blatant anti-Christian attacks in our publically funded universities: “At Savannah State, members of a Christian club were put on suspension for washing each other’s feet during a worship service—school officials called that ‘hazing’ and harassment.” [Isn’t it interesting how some state colleges are using tax payer money to fund Muslim footwashing facilities, but when Christians do it, its is “hazing.”]
“At the University of Wisconsin—Superior, administrators denied InterVarsity Christian Felloswhip…access to campus facilities after accusing the members of violating the school ‘anti-discrimination’ policy by not allowing non-Christians to serve in leadership positions.” [Hmmm, I wonder if the brilliant administrators at the U. of Wisconsin required Muslim groups to have Christian leaders or for Atheist groups to have Muslim leaders, or for Democratic groups to have Republican leaders! How stupid—or hateful—can some people get?]
“At the University of Wisconsin—Eau Claire, university officials forbade RAs…to lead a Bible study—even with just one other person—in their own dorm room. (Beer parties were permitted.)”
The newsletter said that “In at least 230 public universities across the country, institutional policies are in effect that can sharply curtail Christian activity and limit the spread of the Gospel."
It is amazing that university officials, who undoubtedly think of themselves as tolerant and liberal-minded, can be so intolerant, hateful, and un-liberal. It is also amazing that we have such full-blown assault on freedom of speech and freedom of religion going on in state-run institutions, and yet the major media outlets are totally asleep at the switch.
Fortunately, Alliance Defense Fund is helping to fight such university fascism. If you give to charity, the Alliance Defense Fund is a worthy organization.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Forget freedom of religion in Canada
An e-mail from the Family Research Council reports:
"As Ontario's Christian Horizons ministry knows all too well, standing up for your religious beliefs has its price. Last week, the organization was fined $23,000 by Canada's Human Rights Tribunal for asking employees to sign onto a "morality statement" which included a promise not to engage in homosexual relationships. Connie Heintz, a Horizons employee, agreed to the statement, only to reveal later that she was a lesbian. Heintz filed a complaint with the Tribunal claiming that she was "subjected to a poisoned work environment and threatened with the loss of her job." In response, officials ordered the organization to pay Heintz two years' wages, cease all applicant screenings, develop an "anti-discrimination" policy, and send all employees to a "human rights training program." It sounds unfair, yet this is the same rationale that's fueling the U.S. employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) debate. ENDA would mandate employer tolerance of all forms of sexual orientation in hiring, firing, promotion, and many Christian-oriented businesses (such as bookstores and radio stations) may not be protected by the bill's limited religious exemption."
Barack Obama is a strong ENDA supporter.
"As Ontario's Christian Horizons ministry knows all too well, standing up for your religious beliefs has its price. Last week, the organization was fined $23,000 by Canada's Human Rights Tribunal for asking employees to sign onto a "morality statement" which included a promise not to engage in homosexual relationships. Connie Heintz, a Horizons employee, agreed to the statement, only to reveal later that she was a lesbian. Heintz filed a complaint with the Tribunal claiming that she was "subjected to a poisoned work environment and threatened with the loss of her job." In response, officials ordered the organization to pay Heintz two years' wages, cease all applicant screenings, develop an "anti-discrimination" policy, and send all employees to a "human rights training program." It sounds unfair, yet this is the same rationale that's fueling the U.S. employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) debate. ENDA would mandate employer tolerance of all forms of sexual orientation in hiring, firing, promotion, and many Christian-oriented businesses (such as bookstores and radio stations) may not be protected by the bill's limited religious exemption."
Barack Obama is a strong ENDA supporter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
