Wednesday, February 5, 2014

Hope and Change? Not for Gays

By Janet Tassel
February 5, 2010

The bullies at the Southern Poverty Law Center are merely reflecting the standard liberal trope: Murderers, rapists, and other criminals are formed by society and can be helped by psychiatric treatment, but gay men and women are born as homosexuals and are therefore expected to live their lives as homosexuals, whether they like it or not.  This cruel philosophy is reflected in the California state law, signed by Gov. Jerry Brown in 2012, which forbids counselors and therapists from addressing unwanted same-sex attraction. Last summer, Governor Chris Christie saw fit to imitate California, making New Jersey the second state with such a law, prohibiting therapists from assisting minors with "sexual orientation change efforts."


Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Why Is the Southern Poverty Law Center Trying to Crush a Small Jewish Organization?

By Selwyn Duke
January 29, 2014
Yet as true as this is, it's not relevant to JONAH's activities. Those who participate in the organization's programs certainly don't believe their SSA is inborn and irremediable, and they pursue remedies voluntarily. Moreover, their testimonials bear witness to how heartfelt is their desire to live a normal life as they see it, and to how they appreciate the assistance of a group that has helped approximately two-thirds of the people seeking assistance to feel better about themselves and to reduce their homosexual feelings and/or behavior. So why should they be denied the choice to avail themselves of the therapy they so desperately want?  

Friday, January 24, 2014

Does intelligent design provide a plausible account of life’s origins?

Two writers go head to head. . . .
The Cambrian Explosion and the Combinatorial Problem
By Stephen C Meyer
We count on scientists to tell us what they know and don’t know—not just what they want us to hear. But when it comes to the contentious issue of the evolution of life on earth, spokesmen for official science are often less forthcoming than we might wish.
When writing in scientific journals, leading biologists candidly discuss the many scientific difficulties facing contemporary versions of Darwin’s theory. Yet when scientists take up the public defense of Darwinism—in educational policy statements, textbooks, or public television documentaries—that candor often disappears behind a rhetorical curtain. “There’s a feeling in biology that scientists should keep their dirty laundry hidden,” says theoretical biologist Danny Hillis, adding that “there’s a strong school of thought in biology that one should never question Darwin in public.”
The reticence that Darwin’s present day defenders feel about criticizing evolutionary theory would have likely made Charles Darwin uncomfortable. In the Origin of Species, Darwin openly acknowledged important weaknesses in his theory and professed his own doubts about key aspects of it.
Occasionalism Isn't Science
by John Derbyshire
Why can't the purveyors of intelligent design get a break? They have been plowing their lonely furrow for 20 years now, insisting on their right to a seat at science’s banquet and promising that their ideas will bring about a revolutionary overthrow of orthodox biology (which they call “Darwinism” for propagandistic reasons) Any Day Now. They drop heavy hints that biologists are in a panic about the instability of their foundational theories, but are anxious to hide their doubts from public gaze.
Really? One would naturally like to see some illustrative examples. Twenty years on from the inception of ID, the revolution seems as far away as ever. The ID-ers are still shut outside the banquet with their noses pressed forlornly to the window, and the ancien rĂ©gime looks to be as firmly established as ever. What’s the problem here?
The least charitable skeptics accuse ID promoters of running a racket, taking part in the grand old American tradition of fleecing the rubes. (As the immortal Al Bundy told his acolytes while winding up for his sermon at the Church of NO MA’AM: “Now it’s time to eece-flay the ongregation-cay.”) I’m a cynic, but not that much of a cynic. I have engaged in formal debate on Intelligent Design on three or four occasions. I once spent an hour in a room full of principals from the Discovery Institute (DI). They struck me as persons who believe in what they are selling. The Charity Navigator website lists their total 2011 revenues as $5.7 million, which is not a lot. The executives, according to that same website, are not extravagantly paid.

Saturday, January 4, 2014

New Mexico Photography Business Seeks Supreme Court Review

By Thomas M Messner
The Heritage Foundation
January 3, 2014

Growing Conflicts Between Nondiscrimination Policies and Religious Freedom. On March 22, 2013, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights conducted a briefing on reconciling nondiscrimination principles with civil liberties.  One expert explained in his written statement, "The sweeping application of non-discrimination principles poses an increasingly severe threat to civil liberties, especially to our first liberty of religious freedom."


Tuesday, December 31, 2013

Sex After Christianity

By Rod Dreher
April 11, 2013
The American Conservative
By Gay marriage is not just a social revolution but a cosmological one.
It is nearly impossible for contemporary Americans to grasp why sex was a central concern of early Christianity. Sarah Ruden, the Yale-trained classics translator, explains the culture into which Christianity appeared in her 2010 book Paul Among The People. Ruden contends that it’s profoundly ignorant to think of the Apostle Paul as a dour proto-Puritan descending upon happy-go-lucky pagan hippies, ordering them to stop having fun.

In fact, Paul’s teachings on sexual purity and marriage were adopted as liberating in the pornographic, sexually exploitive Greco-Roman culture of the time—exploitive especially of slaves and women, whose value to pagan males lay chiefly in their ability to produce children and provide sexual pleasure. Christianity, as articulated by Paul, worked a cultural revolution, restraining and channeling male eros, elevating the status of both women and of the human body, and infusing marriage—and marital sexuality—with love.

Christian marriage, Ruden writes, was “as different from anything before or since as the command to turn the other cheek.” The point is not that Christianity was only, or primarily, about redefining and revaluing sexuality, but that within a Christian anthropology sex takes on a new and different meaning, one that mandated a radical change of behavior and cultural norms. In Christianity, what people do with their sexuality cannot be separated from what the human person is.

. . . Gay marriage signifies the final triumph of the Sexual Revolution and the dethroning of Christianity because it denies the core concept of Christian anthropology. In classical Christian teaching, the divinely sanctioned union of male and female is an icon of the relationship of Christ to His church and ultimately of God to His creation. This is why gay marriage negates Christian cosmology, from which we derive our modern concept of human rights and other fundamental goods of modernity. Whether we can keep them in the post-Christian epoch remains to be seen.

Saturday, December 28, 2013

What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

By Michael David Rawlings

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.  —Apostle Paul (I Corinthians 6:9-11) 

Perhaps some will imagine something other than the true essence of my intermittent comments amongst the articles listed below expounding that which is ultimately at stack in the face of the political left's obnoxious assaults on liberty and civil discourse, but I will risk it for the sake of those who still don't get it.
While I expect nothing but utter drivel from the feces-slinging, juvenile delinquents of MSNBC, that is to say, Mr. Tingles and Company: the historical, cultural, political and literary (read biblical) ignorance of the ostensibly conservative likes of Bill O'Reilly and Greta Van Susteren of Fox News is a profound revelation. Of particular interest, though of little value, are the analyses of the boobs and bores with whom they've consorted of late over the recent dust up between Phil Robertson and the fascists of GLAAD.
When they're not being all giggly and gossipy in their discussions about what is in fact a very serious matter given the left's now rampant assaults on the natural and constitutional rights of traditionalists in this country, they pause to soberly instruct us about the distinction between government coercion and cultural coercion as if their observation were something profound.


Stop the presses!

In the meantime, traditionalists all across this country, who are very well aware of the essence of that distinction, are being deprived of their livelihoods and fundamental liberties of free-association and religious practice by a host of statutory usurpations and judicial fatwas issued by leftist thugs who don't give hoot about that distinction.
But the worst of this mindless chatter are the complaints of the token pansies who have appeared on Fox's various opinion shows about the putatively "crude" and "offensive" language of a real man.
Phil Robertson doesn't find anal sex, particularly that between persons of the same sex, appealing.  Perhaps he finds it to be downright disgusting.
Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!
One especially hysterical limpwrist on The Kelly File allowed that Bible-believing Christians had a right to their opinion . . . albeit, as long as they kept it to themselves.  The others on the panel barely batted an eye at the tyrannical implications of this two-bit punk's imbecilic drivel:  "Shut up, Christians or else!
Christians are fed up with leftist thugs, the pagan, self-anointed gods of filth.  We are especially fed up with the violations of parental authority in the public schools where barbarians sexualize innocent children with unspeakable depravities in so-called sex education classes and sensitivity training.
It is time for Bible-believing Christians to tell these monsters to keep their filth where it belongs or else. 


GLAAD's Fascist Totalitarianism
By Donald Douglas

After five years of blogging and activism on the homosexual rights issue I'm to the point where I throw my hands up sometimes in disbelief. Virtually the entire "gay rights" agenda is predicated on lies, but worse, most of the mainstream political establishment swallows them without the least bit of shame. It's disgusting. As I wrote years ago, homosexual marriage is not a civil right. A homosexual's preference that his behavior, which is a matter of choice and not biology, be considered a right is not just obscene but a crime against language. But those who many identify as "low information voters" simply have no clue, they have no knowledge of history or natural law or traditional morality. So, they suck up whatever lies the left peddles, and then they mindlessly sign up with the regressive left's totalitarian campaign to silence all disagreement and dissent.

Do Democrats really need to promote religious persecution?
By Karin McQuillan

The insolvable problem is that Democrats don't want to accept the Robertson family statement.  They find it too useful to demonize evangelicals as haters, although they are not.  The Democrats refuse to educate themselves or understand religious people.  Gay activists don't want to extend respect and tolerance to evangelicals that they are seeking for themselves. The answer of my Democrat college-age cousin is to say that religious people will just have to change their beliefs.  My stunned reply that people have the right to freedom of religion was met with flat denial.  Freedom of religion is out the window for millennials.  That's what they've been taught: to respect gays and to disrespect religion.  Once you start with small children and teach them that having negative thoughts about homosexual sex is the same as being a racist and a killer, there is no room for tolerating differences.
Though the true followers of Christ are sheep for the slaughter in a world that is opposed to God, the only thing that the fascist barbarians of secular progressivism, especially the queers among them, will ever respect concerning the legitimate limits of their "rights" is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their smut-filled heads. —Michael David Rawlings

Defender of Biblical and Natural Law
By Paul Kengor

But it's the second aspect of Phil's explication that has elicited screams of blasphemy in the liberal-progressive church. Admittedly, it wasn't expressed with the most artful sophistication. In fact, it makes me blush as I selectively edit it here.  "It seems to me, a [woman's sex organ]—as a man—would be more desirable than a man's [rectum]," Phil pontificated. "That's just me. I'm just thinking: There's more there! She's got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I'm saying? [...] It's not logical, my man. It's just not logical."  Again, this is inelegantly stated, but what Phil is basically invoking, whether he knows it or not, is Natural Law. Phil wouldn't be the only one who probably couldn't identify his sentiment as just that. His liberal antagonists probably couldn't either. They're not learning about Natural Law in their schools and elite universities. (One of my former students was told by her law school professor that Natural Law simply doesn't exist.) At best, they may have come across Thomas Jefferson's line in the Declaration about the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God," but went no further. 

Abortion on Demand, Homosexual "Marriage":  what will they think of next?
By Michael David Rawlings

Their anthem: the less interference of the government in the affairs of the people—from the exchange of ideas to the exchange of goods and services—the better!

The fruition of liberty.

However, Locke extrapolated the sociopolitical principles for his theory of government from Judeo-Christianity's moral system of thought. He held that (1) the sanctity of human life and (2) the biological family of nature were the first principles of private property, the security of which, backed by an armed citizenry, serves as the practical bulwark against the ever-threatening usurpations of government upon the free exercise of the natural rights imparted by the Creator.

The foundation of liberty.

 Phil Robertson, Gramsci, and Tolerance
By Clarence Vindex

After several days of hullaballoo regarding Phil Roberson's comments, A&E's resulting suspension, threats of the family to walk, indignation from the PC crowd, Conservatives rising in defense, point, counterpoint, and arguments about rights or lack thereof, one can see with some clarity what it means to embrace the progressive virtue of "tolerance." This Newspeak term has become a buzzword to suggest that we should all simply tolerate people, lifestyles, beliefs, actions, and the like that are different from our own, because from a value standpoint they're basically all the same. In the ideal, this would mean that people from all walks of life can come together and sit down at the utopian table of progressive brotherhood, free of power structures and hungry for a cruelty-free feast. In practice, tolerance and other PC-buzzwords, like equality, are used to subvert culture and encourage relativism by infiltrating otherwise fringe and radical ideas into the mainstream.

Reality Bites Gays
By Rosslyn Smith

Image control has been crucial to gay activists.  In 1980 Hollywood produced Cruising, a big budget film that showed the seamier side of gay life. It got pretty good reviews because it was edgy and well-acted.   Gay activists denounced it as homophobic because it touched on two taboo subjects that interfered with promoting their agenda to the general public: sadomasochism and recruitment.  Since then, any filmmaker who does not conform his gay characters to a positive and largely asexual template is likely to be criticized. (The Silence of the Lambs emphasized in the script that its serial killer only thought he was a transsexual and was still slammed by the gay activists.)  The arrival of the AIDS pandemic helped reinforce this pressure by offering up a new version of a time honored movie stereotype—the terminally ill secular saint. Today it is allowable to use a gay drama queen as a comedic foil, but only if he is also shown to have a heart of gold.  Otherwise gay characters have to be positive. 

Danger, Phil Robertson! Do Not Kiss Jackson's Ring
By Lloyd Marcus

The left reminds me of the pious, arrogant, and elitist Pharisees in the Bible.  They hated Jesus for doing good works, performing miracles, and connecting with the people.  So they launched a campaign of word games designed to "trap" Jesus into saying something that would help them to brand Jesus a lawbreaker and blasphemer.  The left employs very similar tactics. These people on the left are despicable.  They are not about fairness or truth.  They are about furthering their liberal socialist progressive agenda by any means necessary.  If dividing the country along racial lines helps their cause, so be it.
The idea that the race-baiting pimp and Not-So-Reverend Jesse "Shakedown" Jackson could improve a man of Robertson's grit and integrity is beyond risible.  The notion resides somewhere between a moldy rock and a dark place crawling with maggots.  —Michael David Rawlings   

Life on GLAAD's Blacklist
By Robert Oscar Lopez

Readers will have to forgive me for sounding angry, but the recent news involving GLAAD has enraged me.  Mark Steyn's most recent piece in National Review [See below] sums up some of the worst aspects of the epic saga known as GLAAD v. Duck Dynasty. Steyn resonates with me on one key point: yes, GLAAD is ridiculous and foolish.  We knew this.  But some conservatives who should know better are truly pathetic.  A National Review editor scolds Steyn for being "puerile," while people on Fox News say that Phil Robertson should have been suspended.  Pusillanimous obeisance to false ideology isn't exclusive to left or right.

The Age of Intolerance
By Mark Steyn

As Christian bakers ordered to provide wedding cakes for gay nuptials and many others well understand, America's much-vaunted "freedom of religion" is dwindling down to something you can exercise behind closed doors in the privacy of your own abode or at a specialist venue for those of such tastes for an hour or so on Sunday morning, but when you enter the public square you have to leave your faith back home hanging in the closet. Yet even this reductive consolation is not permitted to Robertson: GLAAD spokesgay Wilson Cruz declared that "Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil's lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe." Robertson was quoting the New Testament, but hey, what do those guys know? In today's America, land of the Obamacare Pajama Boy, Jesus is basically Nightshirt Boy, a fey non-judgmental dweeb who's cool with whatever. What GLAAD is attempting would be called, were it applied to any other identity group, "cultural appropriation."

But wait!  There's more. . . .

Re-Education Camp
By Mark Steyn

It is a matter of some regret to me that my own editor at this publication does not regard this sort of thing as creepy and repellent rather than part of the vibrant tapestry of what he calls an "awakening to a greater civility". I’m not inclined to euphemize intimidation and bullying as a lively exchange of ideas—"the use of speech to criticize other speech", as Mr Steorts absurdly dignifies it. So do excuse me if I skip to the men’s room during his patronizing disquisition on the distinction between "state coercion" and "cultural coercion".  I'm well aware of that, thank you. . . .

Jason Lee Steorts is just another boorish second-rater of obtuseness raised to the infinite power—or is he in fact another lackey of the Fifth Column?—prattling rubbish as if it were profundity. He's something even more grotesque than Obama's pajama boy: a whiny little girl with facial hair waddling about in soiled diapers. Steorts is not fit to be seen in manly company, let alone heard. —Michael David Rawlings 


By Michael Brown

But what he [Rabbi Shmuley] fails to realize is that the reason we have made such an issue about homosexuality is not because of the act itself but rather because of the pervasive gay activism that came knocking at our doors—in our children's schools, in our places of business, in the courts, in politics, in the media, in our communities, and even in our congregations—to the point that we can say without exaggeration that gay activism has become the principle threat to our freedoms of religion, speech, and conscience.

Gay Activists Should Teach Robertson How to Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin
By Adrienne Ross

This whole issue might be quite simple. Perhaps it boils down to the fact that those who disagree with Phil Robertson, those who want him to understand—and accept—their kind of love, don't understand his kind of love, which involves disagreeing and loving simultaneously. And maybe, just maybe, that lack of understanding results from the fact that they themselves cannot attain to such heights of love—apart from the very faith they’ve chosen to shun.

The Anus Monologues
By Ann Coulter

There's absolutely no question but that Robertson accurately summarized biblical strictures. But liberals can't grasp that God is not our imaginary friend, who says whatever we want Him to say, when we want Him to say it. . . .

The ‘Vigilance’ Vigilantes
By Mark Steyn

You sick bigot theocrat hater! Not having a strong feeling is no longer permitted. The Diversity Celebrators have their exquisitely sensitive antennae attuned for anything less than enthusiastic approval. Very quickly, traditional religious teaching on homosexuality will be penned up within church sanctuaries, and “faith-based” ancillary institutions will be crowbarred into submission. What’s that? I’m “scaremongering”? Well, it’s now routine in Canada, where Catholic schools in Ontario are obligated by law to set up Gay-Straight Alliance groups, where a Knights of Columbus hall in British Columbia was forced to pay compensation for declining a lesbian wedding reception, and where the Reverend Stephen Boisson wrote to his local paper objecting to various aspects of “the homosexual agenda” and was given a lifetime speech ban by the Alberta “Human Rights” Tribunal ordering him never to utter anything “disparaging” about homosexuals ever again, even in private. Although his conviction was eventually overturned by the Court of Queen’s Bench after a mere seven-and-a-half years of costly legal battle, no Canadian newspaper would ever publish such a letter today. The words of Chief Justice Burger would now attract a hate-crime prosecution in Canada, as the Supreme Court in Ottawa confirmed only last month.

Tuesday, December 24, 2013

Why We're Raising 'Duck Dynasty' Boys, and Not 'Pajama Boys'

By Trevor Thomas
December 24, 2013


Yes, that means that among other things, they are learning that, along with adultery, fornication, and bestiality, homosexual behavior is sin. They are also learning that they are created in the image and likeness of God, and that all human life, from the moment of conception, is especially precious. And they are learning that in the world today, both abortion and homosexuality are uniquely heinous.  Why the focus on these two particular issues? Because the greatest lie ever told is that there is no God. The second greatest lie ever told is that the devil does not exist. The third greatest lie ever told is that your sin (and mine) is not really sin, and this is exactly what is happening with homosexuality and abortion.


Monday, December 23, 2013

The Fight For Hearts And Minds

By Jeffrey T. Brown
American Thinker
December 23, 2013
Progressivism encourages the growing anti-Enlightenment that has fully reshaped the Democratic party. One's belief in the sanctity of the human being, his divine origins, and the protection of unalienable rights with which he was born, which guided the Founders, is portrayed as the height of ignorance and intolerance by progressives. For the leftist, you see, rights and human dignity are gifted by those in power, not by God. They have purposefully removed God from the equation. The most fundamental right of all, that of obeying one's own conscience, means nothing to the left unless the conscience at issue agrees with them. If a Christian's conscience is the quiet voice of God, as some who listen to it still believe, it is understandable why it is so objectionable to those it does not applaud. The left has deemed such consciences defective, deserving of scorn, and has targeted them for change. Daily exposure to progressive "culture" has become our re-education camp.


Saturday, December 21, 2013

Marxists and Misers

By Bruce Walker
December 13, 2013
Marxists and misers -- those who obsess about "stuff" and ignore their personal duty to others -- are two sides of the same coin.  Marxists, of course, are the worse of the two, because they believe that violence and lies are justified in pursuing their pantheon of heartless deities.  Misers simply think that "stuff" is all there is to life.