|Question asked at a gay protest event|
A RETURN TO BASIC VALUES
|Question asked at a gay protest event|
A number of black Christian pastors and church leaders slammed the United States Supreme Court justices for turning down a case that would once and for all settle the dispute and divisiveness created by the issue of same-sex marriage. The National Coalition of Black Pastors and Christian Leaders characterized the court’s decision — “not to hear the case” and send it back to the lower courts — as cowardice on the part of the nine members of the nation’s highest court.
On Monday, Oct. 6, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court simply stated that it would not review cases which overturned state laws of five states defining marriage as exclusively the union of one man and one woman. The African American Christian group was disappointed that the court gave no explanation for its seemingly arbitrary decision.
The very next day, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguably the most far-left federal court in the nation, overturned two traditional marriage laws, one in the state of Idaho, the other in Nevada. In their press release on Thursday, the Christian group said, “As a result of the decisions this week, 32 states are potentially forced to recognize so called “same-sex marriage” by edict of unelected federal judges holding life-time appointments.”
However, the members of the National Coalition of Black Pastors and Christian Leaders, a client of the Thomas More Law Center, a public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, promised the news media and the American people that these African American church leaders would press on and fight for the traditional marriage between a man and a woman.
“While the mainstream news media — who act as the propaganda machine for gay and lesbian groups — attempts to portray opponents of same-sex marriage as being elderly, white Republicans, the truth is that a overwhelming majority of blacks and Latinos oppose anything but traditional marriage. It’s only in the white community in which you find most of the support for same-sex marriage,” notes political strategist and attorney Victor Rygardt.
Rygardt claims that one of the disturbing trends within much of the news media is the simplistic “good guys vs. bad guys” scenario. “Agenda-driven ideologues masquerading as journalists portray supporters of gay and lesbian marriages as the victimized good guys battling the evil and intolerant mob of Christians and Jews who oppose such concepts,” he said. “The fact is that the nation’s political leaders, the courts and the bureaucrats who run the country are supporters of same-sex marriage, so it is the Christian pastors who are David battling the all-powerful Goliath — the political leaders and their media mouthpieces,” he added.
One of the Black Coalition members, Pastor Danny Holliday, of Victory Baptist Church in Alton, Illinois, told the news media: “Just as the Supreme was all wrong on slavery, which resulted in the Civil War, it is all wrong on legalizing same-sex marriage. I have seen prayer removed from schools, Christmas Nativity Scenes removed from public property. I have watched as the words Merry Christmas have become taboo.
Poland wasn’t sending troops to Iraq because it was worried about Saddam Hussein. It made the commitment because it wanted to be part of a partnership with the United States that would also provide security in its own backyard.
These days Poland won’t be sending 2,500 men to Iraq. It needs its soldiers back home now that Putin is on the rampage and Obama has shown that he can’t and won’t stop him. The same goes for most of the Eastern European countries that were eager to show that they could contribute to the Pax Americana.
The very insults that the left tossed at Bush, warmonger and cowboy, were the reason he could bring together unlikely countries and get them to contribute boots on the ground. Meanwhile the very attributes that won Obama the Nobel Peace Prize are why the spearhead of his coalition is France.
ISLAM BEGS TO DIFFER
“There’s nothing in Islam that condones or suggests people should go out and rape women and sell off young girls or give them as gifts to jihadists and cut people’s heads off and tie people’s hands behind their backs and put them on their knees and shoot them in their backs,” Kerry said.
Islam begs to differ.
“We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the booty was collected. Dihya came and said, ‘O Allah’s Prophet! Give me a slave girl from the captives.’ The Prophet said, ‘Go and take any slave girl.’ He took Safiya bint Huyai. Bukhari: 1:8:367
“The women of Khaybar were distributed among the Muslims.” Ishaq:511
I joined Robert Spencer a few days ago for an interview with Ann Marie Murrell of Politichicks. It was an interesting conversation, especially in light of recent events.
Ann, along with two conservative co-authors, also has a new book out, What Women Want.
Muslim Leader in Scotland: No Independence Because Scots are Racist and Illiterate
A victim of Rotherham’s child sex abuse scandal confronted a man she says groomed her – but was left shocked when she was the one arrested.
A police van came and six male officers piled out. ‘Two of them dragged her away, handcuffed her, put her against a wall and then shoved her into the back of the van.’
A spokesman said: ‘The woman was arrested on suspicion of racially aggravated public order offences.’
I highly doubt that a police van with six officers is dispatched everyone time someone in South Yorkshire is suspected of being drunk. The key there is “Racially”. A Muslim complained and the hounds were released.
The same police who wouldn’t step in when young girls were being raped, are on the go whenever a Muslim’s feelings are hurt.
Rotherham Child-sex Victim Confronts Muslim Abuser, Gets Arrested for Racism
UK PM on Beheading: “They Are Not Muslims. They Are Monsters.”
YES ALL NON-MUSLIMS
It was from their friend, former Kings Cross bouncer and now senior Islamic State commander, Mohammed Baryalei: go out on the streets of Sydney and kill “a random kaffir (non-believer)”.
Kill a random Kaffir is telling.
It didn’t matter to them which non-Muslim they killed or what his specific views on them were.
By Alan Caruba
Whenever a group or class of people is given special “rights” (which aren’t really rights, but privileges), the real natural rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are turned on their ears and shoved down the memory hole. In other words, the rights of the one are secondary to the “rights” of the other simply because one subgroup of individuals has been granted special privileges that never before existed.
Take the case in New York of a Catholic couple who had $13,000 extorted from them by the state of New York (not to mention thousands of dollars in legal fees over two years), were forced to undergo and subject their staff to a state-sponsored re-education camp and were ordered to prominently display on their property a propaganda message contrary to their belief system, all for the “crime” of declining to host a wedding on their farm. The wedding, if it can be called such, was for a lesbian couple.
But this was not just any lesbian couple looking for a wedding locale. This was a lesbian couple fishing for a free wedding and seeking to be offended — or, in their minds, deprived of their rights. The couple secretly recorded the conversation in which their request to have the wedding conducted on the farm — which serves the dual purpose of being a place for events and Robert and Cynthia Gifford’s home — was declined and then quickly ran off to the New York State Division of Human Rights to proclaim they had been aggrieved.
Never mind that the Giffords, while declining to host the wedding, offered to the couple the option of visiting the farm to discuss handling the reception. And never mind that the Giffords had recently hosted a birthday party for the adopted child of a lesbian couple, indicating they held no special animus toward homosexuals. The Giffords’ decision to decline to host the wedding — which was contrary to their faith because they believe God ordained marriage to be a union of one man and one woman — led New York’s DHR to determine they were insensitive and discriminatory and must be punished (discriminated against) and re-educated (brainwashed).
This sort of discrimination (depriving one of his natural rights) against the one on behalf of the other — especially if the other happens to be homosexual — is becoming more common by the day. In St. Paul, Minnesota, the misnamed Minnesota Department of Human Rights recently went after the owners of a lodge after they turned down a request to host a gay wedding — again because it violated their religious beliefs. In order to settle the complaint, the owners of Rice Creek Hunting and Recreation, Inc. had to pay for the couple’s wedding and reception at another location. So apparently in America now, if you are gay and persistent, you can eventually force someone you don’t know and don’t like and who is offended by what you do to pay for your wedding, all in the name of equality and fairness and anti-discrimination.
Dave Brat’s victory over Eric Cantor (R-VA) was attributed to his Tea Party backing, when national groups like the Tea Party Patriots gave him no financial assistance at all. What the media ignored was his campaigning in local churches and emphasis on family values.
In addition to opposing illegal immigration, Brat’s platform declared that “the most important factor in our nation’s success is the strength of the family unit.” It said that Brat would “protect the rights of the unborn and the sanctity of marriage, and will oppose any governmental intrusion upon the conscience of people of faith.”
“A man of deep faith,” his bio says, “Dave attends St. Mary’s Catholic Church with his wife Laura and their two children: Jonathan, 15 and Sophia, 11.” It says he went to Princeton where he obtained a Masters in Divinity and on to American University where he earned a Ph.D. in Economics.
During the campaign he also repeatedly emphasized a national security policy of “peace through strength.”
As they played down his pro-moral values message, in a victory that is continuing to send shock waves through the political establishment, our media have failed to report on how President Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of America has been working out in a process that can only be described as the homosexualization of the Armed Forces.
It is a topic that some Republicans, eager to sound like Democrats on social issues, want to avoid. But Brat’s victory—and the fact that his pro-traditional values message struck a chord—may cause them to start paying attention.
Many have been amazed at the lengths to which the Obama administration went to get Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl out of enemy hands, by exchanging him for five top terrorists. But consider the extraordinary June 5th Department of Defense “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month Ceremony,” which featured “the highest ranking transgendered civilian appointment in the Department,” a “woman” named Amanda Simpson who used to be a man named Mitchell Simpson.
Simpson introduced the event and proudly identified herself/himself as transgender, generating a round of applause.
We reported on Simpson in 2010, when he/she became the first openly transgendered appointee to the federal bureaucracy. Simpson has since moved from the Commerce Department to the Defense Department.
Simpson reflects the aggressive infiltration of the federal government, even the Pentagon, by the George Soros-funded transgender movement. The Executive Director of something called the “Army Energy Initiatives Task Force,” Simpson served as a board member of the National Center for Transgender Equality from 2007 to 2009. George Soros has been a backer of the group, giving them $150,000 through his Open Society Foundations in 2011 alone.
You may recall that former Army soldier Bradley Manning had listed the National Center for Transgender Equality among his “likes and interests.” Manning, who was sentenced to 35 years in prison for violating the Espionage Act, theft of government property, and other offenses, has now said, “I am Chelsea Manning. I am female.” He wants the taxpayers to pay for his sex-change operation and the Pentagon seems willing to oblige him/her.
At the Pentagon event, Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work delivered the keynote address, saying, “We honor the service and sacrifices of our gay and lesbian service members…” Clearly, Manning is not somebody the Pentagon is necessarily “proud” of.
So progressives and hoplophobes (sorry for the redundancy) are lauding the fact that the restaurant Chiplotle has chosen to deny service to people exercising their 2nd Amendment right.
Yet those same progressives went apoplectic when a bakery owner and a photographer chose — for religious reasons — not to bake a cake or photograph homosexual weddings. Can you say hypocrisy?
In a free society, a business should be able to engage in a voluntary transaction or contract, or not, as the owner sees fit, just as the customer has the ability to choose whether to purchase a good or service from a particular business. If a business wants to refuse service to a person wielding a gun, good for it.
Likewise, if a business wants to refuse to perform a service for any other reason, the business should have that right as well.
To support one business’ decision to deny service but not the other is utter hypocrisy. But hypocrisy is the norm for progressives and statists.
To paraphrase Howard Dean, we have had enough of the politics of hate and anger and division. The left wants power so much they think it’s OK to win by taking away the right to bear arms. They are not American. They would be more comfortable in England or Australia.
I like to think of myself as a tolerant person. I have, however, one prejudice that is based on biology and history.
Michael Sam, the first openly gay professional football prospect, made history when he was filmed by an ESPN crew giving his lover, Vito Cammisano, a long, lugubrious kiss to celebrate being selected in the National Football League draft on May 10th. The sight of two men kissing passionately was not something I and a lot of other folks wanted to see.
A spokesman for GLAAD, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Discrimination, called the kiss “a significant milestone”, describing it as “touching.” No it wasn’t. It was nauseating to any heterosexual having to witness it or explain it to their children.
We need to understand that being gay is not normal. Biologically, species exist because the male and female genders exist for the purpose of procreation and propagation. Historically, gays have been held in disdain in every era of civilization. Today in the Islamic Middle East you can be killed for being gay, but you can also be killed for being Christian. In the West both actions are an abomination.
One gets a variety of estimates regarding how many gays there are in America. To the question, how many gay people are there in the United States, “The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, a sexual orientation law and public policy think tank, estimates that 9 million (about 3.8%) of Americans identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender (2011). The institute also found that bisexuals make up 1.8% of the population, while 1.7% are gay or lesbian. Transgender adults make up 0.3% of the population.”
Being as generous as one can with such estimates, it still means that 96% of Americans are heterosexual.
In terms of the news generated by gays and their depiction in films and especially these days on television, one might be inclined to think that they were a far greater part of the population, but they are a minority within other minorities. My own guess is that there a large number of gays in the news profession and most certainly in the world of entertainment. And now we are being informed of gays in the world of sports.
I don’t want to hear much about gays for any reason. The kiss was not something I would want young people to see on television or anywhere else. The bigger problem is that our younger generation, progressing through our schools, is being systematically taught to accept homosexuality as just another version of normality.
A group called MassResistance was created in response to an assault on the Massachusetts school curriculums and GLSEN, the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network, is hard at work in all fifty states! As MassResistance points out, Its agenda is to ensure that “a wide range of psychologically penetrating homosexual and transgender programs (and) activities into the schools,” while “organizing and training teachers to integrate their techniques throughout the curriculum.”
In early April, GLSEN held an all-day conference in Boston with speeches and workshops. It was attended by approximately 325 people, approximately two-third of whom were students. “The GLSEN Conference is run by adults and is meant to train adults.
Imagine you apply for a college program, only to be denied entry because you believe in God. And the kicker is how school administrators knew about your faith.
This is precisely what happened to Brandon Jenkins when he applied for the Radiation Therapy Program at the Community College of Baltimore County (CCBC) in Maryland. And now he’s suing in federal court for religious discrimination. Writes OneNewsNow.com:
Not long after Jenkins initially applied to CCBC’s program as a very strong candidate, he was told by a faculty member that the “field [of radiation therapy] is not the place for religion.”
But why — especially after scoring the maximum amount of points possible during his observation and meeting all the standards?
Jenkins later found that his response to a question asked by college officials during the interview process was the culprit. When asked, “What is the most important thing to you?” the Christian candidate simply replied: “My God.”
What makes this case unusual — and places the school in what should be a legally untenable position, as it receives taxpayer funding — is that program director Adrienne Dougherty actually put the discriminatory motivation in writing, expressing in an e-mail:
I understand that religion is a major part of your life and that was evident in your recommendation letters, [sic] however, this field is not the place for religion. We have many patients who come to us for treatment from many different religions and some who believe in nothing at all. If you interview in the future, you may want to leave your thoughts and beliefs out of the interview process.
Such frankness “astonished” David French, an attorney with the American Center for Law and Justice, who is representing Jenkins in his lawsuit. Fox News’ Todd Starnes reports that French told him in a telephone conversation, “While colleges routinely discriminate against Christians, rarely do they state their discrimination so explicitly.”
Critics also may ask a few questions. If the school wanted Jenkins to leave his “thoughts and beliefs out of the interview process,” why did they ask about them? Was Jenkins supposed to lie? One also could wonder, if the school learned that a person was an ardent atheist, would Dougherty mention that “we have many patients who come to us for treatment who believe in nothing at all and from many different religions,” implying it was a given that the student’s atheism precluded him from treating those outside his world view fairly? Relevant here is G.K. Chesterton’s observation, “In truth, there are only two kinds of people; those who accept dogma and know it, and those who accept dogma and don’t know it.” There isn’t an individual in the CCBC radiation program who isn’t going to have to deal with people embracing different dogma. And as Dougherty seems to prove, unjustly discriminatory motivations aren’t restricted to people of faith.
In its defense, CCBC claims that Jenkins was rejected for other reasons. Dougherty also wrote in her e-mail, reports Starnes:
that while his grades were good, there were other students with higher grade point averages.
The biggest problem Christians and conservatives have in making the case for marriage to the younger generation is we don’t speak the same language, and I’m not referring to the number of ‘likes’ inserted into each sentence that replace thought. Our frame of reference has only a tangential connection with that of the younger generation.
The default authority for Christians when explaining their opposition to homosexual marriage is the Bible. But it’s not for the generation born after 1980. The Washington Times reports, “More Americans are doubting the infallibility of the Bible, treating it as a guidebook rather than the actual words of God, according to a survey released Wednesday.”
This belief (no pun intended) puts that generation in agreement with Episcopalians, Methodists and Unitarians who also don’t understand what the big deal is when Rev. Adam and his wife, Steve shake hands with the faithful as they leave the sanctuary on Sunday.
This finding was part of a survey conducted on behalf of the American Bible Society. In the Times its president, Roy Peterson explained, “I think young people have always questioned their parents, questioned the church…Today the skeptics are saying, ‘It’s just like any other piece of literature, and it’s no different from that.”
It shouldn’t come as a surprise that when a Christian references the Bible, the youngster counters with, “You may like the Bible, but I’m partial to the Epic of Gilgamesh. However, if there was a modern language translation, the Egyptian Book of the Dead also has some value for those who want to increase their spirituality quotient.”
This declining interest is an indication there’s a real chance the Bible may lose it’s spot as the perennial number one best–seller, although this is not sufficient cause for Ellen to hope her bio will take its place.
The importance of the Bible for moral instruction has also declined. In 2013 almost a third of respondents “blamed a lack of Bible reading as the problem” behind a decline in American morals. This year it’s only 26 percent, but that decrease may be explained by the corresponding number of Americans who purchased 70” TVs in the intervening months.
So how does one explain opposition to homosexual marriage in terms the young can grasp? How does one put in context the aggressive demand that Christians conform to an unprecedented definition of marriage that didn’t exist even 25 years ago and flies in the face of all of human history?
How can they relate to our rejection of this absurd definition of marriage that completely upends an accepted way of life in the interest of pleasing an intolerant minority and its cheering section.
There are essentially no sexual taboos today, so approaching the problem from a Biblical angle is like expressing your opposition to the healing power of crystals by using the Physicians Desk Reference, when your audience hasn’t read either one.
Fortunately in today’s brave new culture food taboos have replaced sex taboos and it is here Christians can make our case in a way that duplicates the situation we encountered with homosexual marriage and is simultaneously understandable by the younger generation.
My analogy works regardless of whether you’re locked in debate with a smug and superior homosexual marriage supporter or you’re simply answering a question from one of those ‘love and let love’ types unable to understand why we feel so strongly about the issue.
The demand that Christians completely redefine marriage and accept a radical new definition that institutionalizes and affirms a form sexual practice the Bible specifically forbids, is the exact equivalent of pork lovers demanding that vegan restaurants serve bacon.
If America’s homosexuals can demand “marriage equality” then bacon lovers can demand “flavor equality.”
A vegan’s unconstitutional exclusion of bacon is simply elevating personal preference over a fundamental human right to have food that tastes good.