Showing posts with label homosexuality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label homosexuality. Show all posts

Friday, December 21, 2012

Heterosexual Men - A $65 Million Job Opportunity

This is sort of an adult version of a fairy tale, where princes come from far and wide to the Princess's castle in an effort to woo her, thus earning her hand and sharing her wealth.



The beautiful woman on the right is 33 year old Gigi Chao. No, she is not a princess, but she is the gorgeous daughter of billionaire real estate developer, Cecil Chao.

Mr. Chao is offering a handsome reward indeed - $65 million - to any man that can woo his daughter and win her heart. This is sounding like a great gig.

There is a catch, however. It is a herculean task given that she is . . . . gay . . . and recently married in France to another woman. None the less, the bounty stands - and every other comment I would make is wholly inappropriate for this PG-rated blog.





Read More...

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

GoProud, SoCons, The CPAC Boycott, & Homosexuality In Context

What is and should be the relationship between the conservative movement and conservative homosexuals? What should be the relationship between the conservative movement and homosexuality more generally? Those questions are implicated in the decision to invite GoProud to attend the CPAC conference and the decision by World Net Daily and the Family Research Council to boycot the event. It is also the subject of a post by Daniel Blatt of Gay Patriot. As he sees it:

While the fact that some groups are boycotting does show that that not all conservatives are willing to include their gay and lesbian confreres, overwhelmingly, conservative organizations don’t have a problem working together with gays in common purpose. And that purpose is reducing the size and scope of the federal government while standing up for basic American values, including the freedom to live our lives as we choose.

We may not agree with some of these organizations on all issues (nor they with us), but at least they welcome us into the conservative fold. And that really should be the takeaway from this kerfuffle, that the conservative movement is increasingly opening its doors to openly gay men and lesbians.

Well said and, I believe, very true.

One of the comments to Daniel's post caught my eye. It was from an Orthodox Rabbi who expounded on how he, as a social conservative, views homosexuality:

People of faith insist that homosexuality is the most serious of sins because the Bible calls it an abomination.

But the word appears approximately 122 times in the Bible. Eating nonkosher food is an abomination (Deuteronomy 14:3). A woman returning to her first husband after being married in the interim is an abomination (Deut. 24:4). And bringing a blemished sacrifice on God’s altar is an abomination (Deut. 17:1.). Proverbs goes so far as to label envy, lying and gossip as that which “the Lord hates and are an abomination to Him” (3:32, 16:22).

As an Orthodox rabbi who reveres the Bible, I do not deny the biblical prohibition on male same-sex relationships. Rather, I simply place it in context.

There are 613 commandments in the Torah. One is to refrain from gay sex. Another is for men and women to marry and have children. So when Jewish gay couples come to me for counselling and tell me they have never been attracted to the opposite sex in their entire lives and are desperately alone, I tell them, “You have 611 commandments left. That should keep you busy. Now, go create a kosher home with a mezuza on the door. Turn off the TV on the Sabbath and share your festive meal with many guests. Put on tefillin and pray to God three times a day, for you are His beloved children. He desires you and seeks you out.”

Once, I said to my friend Pat Robertson, whom I have always found engaging and open in our conversations, “Why can’t you simply announce to all gay men and women, ‘Come to church. Whatever relationship you’re in, God wants you to pray. He wants you to give charity. He wants you to lead a godly life.”

He answered to the effect that homosexuality is too important to overlook, seeing as it poses the most grave risk to the institution of marriage. Other Evangelical leaders have told me the same. Homosexuality is the single greatest threat to the family.

BUT WITH one of two heterosexual marriages failing, with 70 percent of the Internet dedicated to the degradation of women through pornography and with a culture that is materially insatiable even as it remains all-too spiritually content, can we straight people say with a straight face that gays are ruining our families? We’ve done a mighty fine job of it ourselves.

The extreme homophobia that is unfortunately to be found among many of my religious brothers and sisters – in many Arab countries being gay is basically a death sentence – stems from an even more fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of sin. The Ten Commandments were given on two tablets to connote two different kinds of transgression, religious and moral. The first tablet discusses religious transgressions between God and man, such as the prohibitions of idolatry, blasphemy and desecrating the Sabbath. The second tablets contains the moral sins between man and his fellow man, like adultery, theft, and murder.

The mistake of so many well-meaning people of faith is to believe that homosexuality is a moral rather than a religious sin. A moral sin involves injury to an innocent party. But who is being harmed when two, unattached, consenting adults are in a relationship? Rather, homosexuality is akin to the prohibition of lighting fire on the Sabbath or eating bread during Passover. There is nothing immoral about it, but it violates the divine will.

For the record, I am in favor of gay civil unions rather than marriage because I am against redefining marriage.

But I hardly believe that gay marriage is the end of Western civilization.

For me the real killer is the tsunami of divorce and the untold disruption to children as they become yo-yos going from house to house on weekends.

The American religious and electoral obsession with all-gay-marriage-all- the-time has led to a values-vacuum where it is near impossible to discuss real solutions to the erosion of family life. For instance, making marital counselling tax deductible would do infinitely more to bolster the crumbling institution of marriage than any opposition to gay relationships.

Likewise, promoting a code of gentlemanly conduct for men on American college campuses and negating the prevailing hook-up culture where sex even precedes dating could spark a return to romantic and long-term commitments.

Finally, getting more families to sign up for our international “Turn Friday Night into Family Night” would give children in general, and girls in particular, greater self-esteem as they are focused on by their parents for at least two hours each week without any electronic interference. And children with self-confidence later create stronger adult relationships.

I have numerous gay friends whose greatest fear, like so many straight people, is to end up alone. Should we merely throw the book at these people? Does not the same book, the Bible, also say, “It is not good for man to be alone?” And all I’m asking from my religious brethren is this: Even as you oppose gay relationships because of your beliefs, please be tortured by your opposition. Understand that when our most deeply held beliefs conflict with our basic humanity, we should feel the tragedy of the conflict, rather than simply find convenient scapegoats upon whom to blame all of America’s ills.

The writer is the author of Renewal: A Guide to the Values-Filled Life and is founder of This World: The Values Network, a national organization that promotes universal Jewish values to heal America. Follow him on Twitter@Rabbishmuley and at http://www.shmuley.com. Subscribe to our Newsletter to receive news updates directly to your email http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=191923

I think the Rabbi has it right - and his views closely track my own. And no reader of this blog could possible characterize me as anything other than a conservative whether fiscally, socially or in matters related to defense.

That said, someone's homosexuality is not my business nor the business of the state. Homosexuality defines one's sexual preferences, not their character nor the goodness of their soul, and it is only the latter two that add up an individual's benefit to society. I welcome anyone, regardless of sexual preference, into the conservative tent if they share conservative's concern with issues of freedom, democracy, fiscal sanity and defense.

I do have some significant reservations concerning the push for "gay rights." One, as a religious person, I disagree with sanctioning gay marriage, though I support the concept of gay unions. Two, as a former infantry officer and company commander, I disagree with lifting DADT on pragmatic grounds. Three, I get absolutely livid over attempts by the radical left to normalize homosexuality in grade school. And four, I get equally livid over using the police power of the state to suppress speech critical of homosexuality. Indeed, that last is particularly outrageous, as are all "hate speech" laws and policies.

Beyond those areas of disagreement that I might have with many homosexuals, including some conservtive homosexuals on points one and two I suspect, there are thousands of other points on which we may well agree. To your average left-wing single-issue homosexual, I would no doubt be described as a raging homophobe. To a conservative homosexual, I would no doubt be described as that short, intellectualy challenged guy that likes to talk politics with them over an ice cold beer or glass of home-made mead.

In any event, I am glad GoProud has been invited to CPAC. I am disgusted with social conservatives who are boycotting CPAC on those grounds, not because of their stance against homosexuality, but because of their cowardice. If there is a debate to be had on social issues, let it be in full sunlight under the conservative tent. Taking one's chips and going home is hiding from the debate, and that is something I only expect from the left.

Read More...

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Ken Mehlman Comes Out Of The Closet


Former RNC Chairman and Bush campaign manager, Ken Mehlman has come out of the closet. Apparently, he was one of the last to realize that he was gay. Daniel Blatt of Gay Patriot observes that Mellman is Republican, Jewish and good looking. His only question, "is he single?" Heh. Go get 'em, tiger.

Read More...

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

What Sheer Idiocy: WND Drops Ann Coulter As Keynote Speaker Over Speech To Gay Republicans


This really tees me off. World Net Daily (WND) has dropped Ann Coulter as the keynote spearker at their "Taking America Back National Conference" because Ms. Coulter accepted an invitation to speak at Homoncon 2010, a conference being held by a conservative organization of homosexuals, GOProud. I blogged Ms. Coulter's acceptance here. And I for one was happy both that GOProud asked her and that she accepted. I would also note that John Hawkins of Right Wing News has endorsed the GOProud convention.

If you visit GOProud's website you will find the following:

GOProud’s Conservative Agenda

The so-called “gay agenda” is defined by the left through a narrow prism of legislative goals. While hate crimes and employment protections may be worthy goals, there are many other important priorities that receive little attention from the gay community. GOProud’s agenda emphasizes conservative and libertarian principles that will improve the daily lives of all Americans, but especially gay and lesbian Americans.

1 – TAX REFORM - Death tax repeal; domestic partner tax equity, and other changes to the tax code that will provide equity for gays and lesbians; cut in the capital gains and corporate tax rates to jump start our economy and create jobs; a fairer, flatter and substantially simpler tax code.

2 – HEALTHCARE REFORM – Free market healthcare reform. Legislation that will allow for the purchase of insurance across state lines – expanding access to domestic partner benefits; emphasizing individual ownership of healthcare insurance – such a shift would prevent discriminatory practices by an employer or the government.

3 – SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM - Bringing basic fairness to the Social Security system through the creation of inheritable personal savings accounts.

4 – DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL REPEAL – Repeal of the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.

5 – HOLDING THE LINE ON SPENDING – Standing up for all tax payers against wasteful and unneccessary spending to protect future generations from the mounting federal debt.

6 – FIGHTING GLOBAL EXTREMISTS – Standing strong against radical regimes who seek to criminalize gays and lesbians.

7 – DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTION – Opposing any anti-gay federal marriage amendment.

8 – ENCOURAGING COMMUNITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP – Package of free market reforms to encourage and support small businesses and entrepreneurship in the gay community.

9 – REVITALIZING OUR COMMUNITIES – A package of urban related reforms; expanding historic tax preservation credits; support for school choice.

10 – DEFENDING OUR COMMUNITY – Protecting 2nd amendment rights

Most of the above is also my agenda, and indeed, the agenda of virtually all conservatives. So what is WND's problem? According to WND's President, they are upset that Coulter would agree to speak before "a group that is fighting for same-sex marriage and open homosexuality in the military . . . [and] the idea that sodomy is just an alternate lifestyle."

I too object to gay marriage on religious grounds, though I think that it is ultimately an issue for states to decide by referendum. Speaking from my experience as a former soldier and the father of soldiers, I also object to changing the don't ask don't tell policy on pragmatic grounds. As to sodomy, I think WND is off the reservation on that issue. That is a question between consenting adults. Neither the government nor, in its arrogance, WND, have any business telling people what they can or cannot do sexually in the privacy of their homes. (This is one of the few issues on which I am agreement with Nancy Pelosi - at least except for the gerbil issue.)

At any rate, as to the disagreements on gay marriage and gays serving openly in the military, a lot of Conservatives share similar concerns. That does not mean that conservatives should reject gays because of their sexual orientation, or that we should do anything other than welcome them with open arms as allies, close friends, and as full equity partners in the Conservative movement. And indeed, it is a mark of the maturity of GOProud members that they have risen above single issue politics.

As an aside, it is also a mark of that maturity that the GOProud members have developed a highly refined sense of humor, as the above poster for Homocon indicates. "Our gays are more macho than their straights" indeed. Heh. Take that, John Edwards.

Single issue grievance politics is the hallmark of the left. They make it work because it is their rasion d'etre. Conservatives can't do that because they will never be able to sustain such a conceit. Intellectual honesty demands that we recognize the host of issues facing our nation and address them all. Within that rubic, the Conservative Tent has ample room indeed to welcome in and give full support GOProud and its members, even if not all conservatives agree with them on the issue of gay marriage and gays serving openly in the military.

The only place you will find such "single issue" intolerance on the right is on the very fringes. And that is where WND finds itself now. For WND to start engaging in retributions based on such single issue politics is both idiotic and outrageous. Conservatives need to let WND now fully and completely the error of their ways.

At any rate, Go GOProud. And go Ms. Coulter. I hope that all of you have a great Homocon 2010. My only regret is that I won't be there to share it with you.

Read More...

Friday, July 16, 2010

Read'n, Writ'n, & Butt Hump'n


Helena, Montana's new proposed elementary school curriculum seems to have taken a new twist indeed. It appears short on the teaching of reading and writing, long on sexualizing our children and teaching them to accept homosexuality.

I have several concerns in our culture wars. One, that our children are being sexualized. Two, that God and a generic judeo-christian morality have been ripped from the public sphere and our schools. And three, instead of leaving the teaching of morality to the parents, the left's secular ideology is now being taught to our children as the new morality. And all of those concerns are highlighted in the latest from Helena, Montana.

The Helena school board chairman has introduced a new gay friendly curriculum that will have kindergardeners introduced to penis's and vaginas. In First Grade, children will be taught to "understand [that] human beings can love people of the same gender . . ." This lesson is repeated in different forms in all future grades, as well as a block of instruction discussing how it is unacceptable to denigrate someone for being gay. By Fifth Grade, children will be taught about "oral, anal and vaginal" intercourse, and in Sixth Grade, they will be taught:

Understand that sexual intercourse includes but is not limited to vaginal, oral, or anal penetration using the penis, fingers, tongue or objects.

Well, that's just great - for my twenty-something son and daughter (or me for that matter). I think that is outrageous for an 11 or 12 year old student in elementary school to be exposed to this. Call me a prude. Further, whether homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle is a moral and religious issue, not something that lies within the purview of public schools. But by sixth grade, students are being taught that:

[S]exual orientation refers to a person’s physical and/or romantic attraction to an individual of the same and/or different gender, and is one part of ones’ personality.

Whether schools should teach children about sex and, if so, when is a reasonable area of debate. But the Helena, Montana proposed curriculum goes beyond any reasonable bounds of teaching about reproduction. Indeed, it borders on, if not strays into the arena of sexualing children and it completely oversteps its bounds in teaching that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle. This is the left wing agenda on steroids. Our children need to be protected from their clutches. Step number one, vote for a new school board in Helena Montana - and in every other locality where the left is seeking to shape our children in their image.

Read More...

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

An Update On The War On Christianity


If the secular left - and Islamists - have their way, they will make of Christians second class citizens in America, subject to punishment by the police power of the state for professing their beliefs. And we see it this week, with a Professor of Catholicism fired for teaching Catholic doctrine on homosexuality and four Christians arrested for proselytizing among Muslims - in Michigan.

Case number one - Ken Howell, a professor of Catholic Studies for nine years at the Univ. of Illinois has been fired for the secular mortal sin of "hate speech." His specific crime was pointing out that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin:

Howell, who taught Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought, says he was fired at the end of the spring semester after sending an e-mail explaining some Catholic beliefs to his students preparing for an exam.

"Natural Moral Law says that Morality must be a response to REALITY," he wrote in the e-mail. "In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same."

An unidentified student sent an e-mail to religion department head Robert McKim on May 13, calling Howell's e-mail "hate speech." The student claimed to be a friend of the offended student. The writer said in the e-mail that his friend wanted to remain anonymous.

"Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing," the student wrote. "Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another." . . .

The student here is making a distinction without a difference. Is he claiming that any professor who teaches the tenets of Catholicism can only do so if they profess to believe that the biblical authors and the Pope are false and wrong? It is tough to tell, but in any event, it seems ludicrous indeed. To continue:

In an e-mail to other school staff, Ann Mester, an associate dean at the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, said Howell's e-mail justified his firing.

"The e-mails sent by Dr. Howell violate university standards of inclusivity, which would then entitle us to have him discontinue his teaching arrangement with us," Mester wrote. . . .

This is outrageous on just so many levels. One, this is an elevation of the homosexuality to the point that the University is demanding that it be accepted as a normal lifestyle, and they are threatening the livelihood of anyone who does not agree. The left has made of radical secularism its own state religion with severe penalties for blasphemy.

Two, could there be any clearer violation of the right of freedom of speech?

Three, the left labels any criticism of their victim classes as "hate speech." What the Professor said was that homosexuality was not moral or normal. So how does that quality as "hate?" What it is in reality is a means of crushing speech that does not conform with their idea of political correctness.

Four, is there anyone on the planet who does not understand that the bible makes plain that homosexuality is considered a sin. Hands? And thus, if someone is going to teach about Catholicism at a university, is the professor required to burn certain pages from the bible as sacrilegious under the new radical secularism?

I sincerely hope this professor files the mother of all civil rights law suits.

Then there are the Arabs in Dearborn and the local police:

Four Christian missionaries were arraigned today on misdemeanor charges of disturbing the peace following their June 18 arrest at the Arab International Festival.

Negeen Mayel, 18, of California; Nabeel Qureshi, 29, of Virginia; Paul Rezkalla, 18 of New York, and David Wood, 34, also of New York, face fines of up to $500 each and up to 93 days in jail. Dearborn authorities said the four "chose to escalate their behavior, which appeared well-orchestrated and deliberate" as they handed out religious literature and talking with people at the festival. The woman and three men are members or founders of a group called "Acts 17 Apologetics." . . .

This is another case that screams out for a civil rights lawsuit.

And the war on Christianity continues ever onwards in America. God help us all if the left and the Islamists win.

Read More...

Sunday, May 2, 2010

Christian Beliefs Are The New Sins In A Secular Socialist Nation


The left's war on Christianity continues unabated. In Britain, it is now a sin to criticize homosexuality, one that the socialist Labour government is punishing with the police powers of the state. The most recent - the arrest of a preacher for the mere public expression that he sees homosexuality as sinful. This from the Daily Mail:

A Christian street preacher has been arrested and charged with a public-order offence after saying that homosexuality was sinful.

Dale Mcalpine was handing out leaflets to shoppers when he told a passer-by and a gay police community support officer that, as a Christian, he believed homosexuality was one of a number of sins that go against the word of God.

Mr Mcalpine said that he did not repeat his remarks on homosexuality when he preached from the top of a stepladder after his leafleting. But he has been told that police officers are alleging they heard him making his remarks to a member of the public in a loud voice that could be overheard by others. . . .

(H/T: Crusader Rabbit)

The arrest of Rev. McAlpine comes on the heels of a decision by Lord Justice Laws last week, likewise attacking Christianity and enforcing his own secular values on all Brits, even in matters of conscience (see here). Christopher Booker in the Telegraph and Peter Hitchens at the Daily Mail put these acts in context. This from Mr. Booker:

Lord Justice Laws last week ruled that Gary McFarlane was rightly given the sack as a relationship counsellor for refusing to give "sex therapy lessons" to gay couples because it was against his Christian principles. According to Laws, "law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds is irrational, divisive, capricious, arbitrary".

Climate change evangelist Tim Nicholson, on the other hand, was recently awarded £42,200 for his wrongful dismissal by a property firm, after last year's ruling by Mr Justice Burton that Mr Nicholson's "philosophical belief" in man-made global warming was on a par with religious belief and must therefore be given legal protection under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, issued under the 1972 European Communities Act to implement EC directive 2000/78.

So let us get this straight. Under a law designed to bar religious discrimination, it is now perfectly legal to discriminate against someone's beliefs so long as these are based on religion – eg Christianity (but not of course Islam) – because religion is irrational, capricious and arbitrary. But the same law must protect someone's belief so long as it is not based on religion – eg a devout faith in man-made global warming. . . .

And this from Mr. Hitchens:

Revolutions do not always involve guillotines or mobs storming palaces. Sometimes they are made by middle-aged gentlemen in wigs, sitting in somnolent chambers of the High Court.

Sometimes they are made by police officers and bureaucrats deciding they have powers nobody knew they had, or meant them to have.

And Britain is undergoing such a revolution – quiet, step-by-step, but destined to have a mighty effect on the lives and future of us all.

The Public Order Act of 1986 was not meant to permit the arrest of Christian preachers in English towns for quoting from the Bible. But it has. The Civil Partnerships Act 2004 was not meant to force public servants to approve of homosexuality. But it has.

The Sexual Offences Act of 1967 was not meant to lead to a state of affairs where it is increasingly dangerous to say anything critical about homosexuality. But it did.

And the laws of Britain, being entirely based upon the Christian Bible, were not meant to be used by a sneering judge to declare that Christianity had no higher status in this ancient Christian civilisation than Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism.

But it has come to that this week.

How did it happen that in the course of less than 50 years we moved so rapidly from one wrong to another?

Until 1967, homosexuals could be – and were – arrested and prosecuted for their private, consenting, adult acts.

This was a cruel, bad law that should never have been made. It led to blackmail and misery of all kinds.

Those who repealed it did so out of humanity and an acceptance that we need to live in peace alongside others whose views and habits we do not share. No such generous tolerance is available from the sexual revolutionaries.

Now, as the case of Dale Macalpine shows, we are close to the point where a person can be prosecuted for saying in public that homosexual acts are wrong.

And officers of the law, once required to stay out of all controversy, get keen official endorsement when they take part in open political demonstrations in favour of homosexual equality.

We have travelled in almost no time from repression, through a brief moment of mutual tolerance, to a new repression. And at the same time, the freedom of Christians to follow their beliefs in workplaces is under aggressive attack.

Small and harmless actions, offers of prayer, the wearing of crucifixes, requests to withdraw from duties, are met with official rage and threats of dismissal, out
of all proportion. . . .

Daily the confidence of the new regime grows. The astonishing judgment of Lord Justice Laws last week, in which he pointedly snubbed Lord Carey, a former Archbishop of Canterbury, and mocked the idea that Christianity had any special place in our society, is a warning that this process has gone very deep and very far.

The frightening thing is that it has not stopped, nor is it slowing down. What cannot be said in a Workington street will soon be unsayable anywhere.

And if Christianity has officially ceased to be the basis of our law and the source of our state’s authority (a view which makes nonsense of the Coronation Service) who, and what – apart from the brute power of the manipulated mob – is to decide in future what is right, and what is not, and what can be said, and what cannot? . . .

Hitchens in particular makes several points that I have likewise made repeatedly on this blog. Christianity and the Judeo-Christian ethic have undergirded our laws and social framework for nearly two thousand years. It has been the avowed goal of socialists for over two centuries to rip Christianity from the foundations of Western civilization as part and parcel of their effort to remake society. But this comes with deeply fundamental - and likely existential - ramifications, for if morality and the law become unmoored from the Judeo-Christian ethic, then it is left to the whims of politicians and the "manipulated mob" to redefine morality based on whatever they see as the greater good. It is but a very short step from there to using the police power of the state to enforce that new morality. As I wrote here:

. . . For the better part of two millennium, the Judeo-Christian ethic has provided a rock solid framework for morality at the heart of Western society - one that puts maximum value on each individual human life and one that provides moral clarity in such things as Christianity's Golden Rule and Judaism's "Great Commandment." Take that mooring away from the ancient expressions of our deity and all morality then becomes dependant on what any particular person or government defines as the greater good.

When governments and individuals can define by their whim what is moral or immoral, what is desirable and what is punishable, human life is almost inevitably devalued. Certainly Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, and Pol Pot, between them responsible for the murder of well over a hundred million people in the 20th century, held to socialist belief systems that devalued human life and elevated in its stead political ideology. Many in the green movement argue that man is a parasite on the world and call for strictly limiting his impact using authoritarian means - including population control, forced sterilization and other such methods. Far less destructive but no less insidious are the new age religions - for but one example, mystic beliefs based on the book and movie The Secret, where one only needs to really believe - and maybe click their heels three times - and then the "universe will provide." It certainly saves one the trouble of actually dealing with real world problems, at least until they come to crisis proportions. Or the neo-Druidism one can see in practice among the many robed figures gathered at Stonehenge each Equinox. Hopefully these modern day animists will not also seek to resurrect the Druidic custom of human sacrifice.

The bottom line is, regardless whether one believes in Judaism or Christianity, we will pay a very heavy price indeed for jettisoning them as the bedrock of Western society. Yet that is precisely what the left has sought for over two centuries, promising in their stead a secular heaven on earth. Ironically, should the socialist left fully succeed, history teaches us that their promised earthly heaven will be far more likely to resemble biblical hell.

Read More...

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Christainity, Islam, Homosexuality, & Britain's Socialist State


I have addressed the left's two century old war on Christianity at some length here, pointing out that the left wants to rip Christianity from the foundations of society. In its stead, the left seeks to redefine morality based on whatever they believe is the greater good. We see this at work on both sides of the pond, with the most recent example coming from Britain - a Christian nation with a national Church - in a recent court case:

A judge today threw out a Christian counsellor's claim he had been wrongly sacked for refusing to give sex therapy to homosexual couples.

In a ruling which will further inflame fraught relations between the Church and the judiciary, Lord Justice Laws said that the protection of views purely on religious grounds cannot be justified.

He said it was not only an irrational idea, 'but it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary'.

The case was brought by father-of-two Gary McFarlane, a former Relate counsellor, and backed by the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey.

Mr McFarlane, 48, from Bristol, had worked at the Avon branch of Relate where he had offered advice on sexual intimacy to straight couples.

But during his three years at the centre, he refused to work with same-sex partners because he believed it went against his religious beliefs.

This eventually led to him being sacked in 2008. Mr McFarlane later alleged unfair dismissal on the grounds of religious discrimination.

But a tribunal dismissed his claims in January last year. He had gone to the High Court to seek leave to appeal the decision.

In a ruling issued today, Lord Justice Laws, threw out his case.

He said 'We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs.

The 2001 British census showed the populace of Britain to be Christian - 71.6%, Muslim - 2.7%, Hindu - 1%, other - 1.6%, and unspecified or none - 23.1%. This is a judge imposing multiculturalism and socialist ethos on a predominantly Christian nation - and a nation where the Judeo-Christian ethic has undergirded its legal system for well over a millennium.

'The precepts of any one religion - any belief system - cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other.

'If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens, and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic.

This is fatuous reasoning indeed. Leaving aside the fact that Britain is still a Christian nation, whose belief system is the judge imposing? Obviously he is imposing some belief system, he is just not being honest about it. And indeed, he is imposing the belief system of the secular left - something which history has shown to have a tendency towards the most autocratic of systems.

'The law of a theocracy is dictated without option to the people, not made by their judges and governments.

'The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law, but the State, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself.' . . .

A theocracy? I would expect a more sophistated argument from a high school student.

So according to this radical secularist, any laws which are undergirded by the Judeo-Christian ethic make of Britain a theocracy? That is utterly ludicrous. Britain, like all of Western civilization, has had laws based on the Judeo-Christian ethic for well over a millennium, yet no one with even the slightest passing acquaintance with British history could ever have called it a theocracy. One wonders if this judge has any idea what a theocracy is? Or did he learn his history reading Marx?

Actually what the judge is doing is the opposite of respect for conscience. Regardless of what one may think of homosexuality today, the reality is that it has been deemed a wrong for millennia in both Judaism and Christianity. Whether and to what extent it should be accepted in society today is a question of social policy to be decided by the community at large. But that is not what is happening here. The Judge, by his decision, is enforcing a modern secular belief system - the conscience of left wing socialist state - favoring homosexuals over the left's nemesis, Christianity, and making it a modern secular sin to do anything but fully accept homosexuality as a normal life-choice.

And do note, while the secular left is conducting its war against Christianity, it is wholly servile when it comes to Islam. While a Christian acting in accord with his conscience and belief is punished, Muslims are accommodated. For example, Muslim female hospital employees are allowed to wear long sleeves in hospitals despite the fact that such is much more likely to transmit "superbugs." All Brits in the UK are now paying welfare benefits for Muslims in polygamous marriages. And these are only a few of the many accommodations made to Muslims. The secular left favors Islam because, for now, it is an ally in the left's war on Christianity.

Read More...

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Larry Craig, the ACLU & Sex In Publc Restrooms

Its axiomatic that cases with bad facts make for bad law. And in that vein, there is the case of Senator Larry Craig (R-ID).

Craig, shown in the mug shot at left, continues to fight his conviction stemming from his solicitation of sex in an airport men's room. He pled guilty, then later tried to rescind his plea. The Court refused. But Craig hasn't given up - something for which only Leno and Letterman can possibly be thankful.

Now Craig has enlisted the ACLU to pursue his defense. Their argument is that, even accepting that Craig was soliciting sex from an undercover officer in the next stall, his acts were protected by a constitutional right to privacy.

Can you believe this inanity?

Craig was in a public restroom for God's sake. Even assuming he had a right to privacy when he sat down inside a stall and closed the stall door, the very essence of a right to privacy is that the person claiming the right acted reasonably to protect his privacy. When Craig acted with the intention that his sounds and acts would be witnessed outside his stall, he was clearly acting in a way that was not private.

Admittedly, the ACLU's argument is based on Minnesota Constitutional law and not the U.S. Constitution. I am not an expert in Minnesota law. That said, I cannot in the least imagine that there is a court in Minnesota or anywhere else in this nation that could conclude that their state Constitution would extend a right of privacy to sexual solicitations in a public place.

On more practical grounds, do we want to see something like this below when we enter a public restroom? Or far worse, do we want our young children exposed to it when we allow them to go into a public restroom?




Its one thing to tell the state to stay the hell out of one's bedroom. Its a different matter entirely to argue one has a constitutional right to bring their bedroom to the public.

Larry Craig is clearly willing to damage the fabric of our society in pursuit of his own ends. This is despicable. I could care less whether or not Larry Craig is gay - that has no bearing on his fitness to be in Congress. But his subterfuge, his poor judgment, and now his willingness to harm society do bear on that fitness. Larry Craig needs to end this travesty in the court system and resign his seat in the Senate.

As to the ACLU, for what little good they have done for society since their inception, the damage they have done to our nation in conjuction with activist judges is simply incalculable. This case is but one more example the ACLU's assault on American society.

You can find the article on the ACLU's defense of Senator Craig here.


Read More...

Monday, December 10, 2007

Interesting News From Around the Web

The Goracle is at it again. On Monday, he used the occasion of his 2007 Nobel Peace Prize lecture "to tell the world in powerful, stark language" that "Man-Bear-Pig is" – no, wait one, strike that -- he said that "Climate change is a real, rising, imminent and universal" threat to the future of the earth.

Not only did he win the Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize, the Goracle tops the list of the "Greenest Hypocrites" of 2007. And Marc Sheppard at American Thinker ponders just how green was the Bali Conference.

Students are protesting at Iran’s colleges as Ahmedinejad tightens the screws.

I am sure that someone else has already made this observation in print, but it bears repeating, people do not kill crazed gunmen, people with guns do.

Michael Vick gets hammered with a 23 month sentence for his role in a dogfighting ring. The judge went beyond the sentence of 12 to 18 months recommended by prosecutors because he believed that Vick had been misleading in his statements to the FBI.

At an international conference in Scotland organized by the IAEA, security experts are warning of the threat of "dirty bombs" and urging tighter control on nuclear materials. Perhaps someone could put them in touch Vann Van Diepen.

Ralph Peters looks at the work our Rehab Centers are doing for our wounded veterans. It’s a good read.

Scientists use genetic manipulation to create bisexual fruit flys, leading to the supposition that homosexuality has a genetic basis but is not hard wired.

The Supreme Court ponders whether the Constitution of the United States afford any due process for alien jihadists even as they conduct a terror war against Americans.

John McLaughlin, former deputy director of the CIA, states that the next administration and Congress need to give serious thought to stopping the flow of intelligence leaks.

Our MSM believes in balanced reporting when it comes to Iraq. As Gateway Pundit discusses, any good news must be balanced by bad news, even if it is uncorroborated.

Islamists carry out two suicide attacks in Pakistan, both horrific. One was on a busload of school children all below the age of twelve. The other was at a nuclear weapons site.

Read More...