Liberty and Virtue

A person who experiences same sex attraction and who endeavors to live chastely in accordance with his religious beliefs keeps an eye out for examples of gay activists' (1) showing intolerance and hatred of traditional religious and moral beliefs and believers, (2) attempting to deny freedom of speech, assembly and religion to others, and (3) trying to cause the government to impose liberal views on sexual morality on society. Other stuff of interest to blogger may also occasionally be posted.

Gay activists do not speak for all those who experience same sex attraction!

Not all those with SSA reject traditional sexual morality!

Not all those with SSA support promiscuity!

Not all those with SSA believe the gay activist ideology of “gay pride”!

Not all those with SSA believe in making their sex drive their primary public identity!

Not all those with SSA support public indecency in “gay pride” parades!

Not all those with SSA support government promotion of homosexual activity!

Not all those with SSA support same sex marriage!

Not all those with SSA support biased teaching in public schools on homosexual matters!

Not all those with SSA demonize traditional religious believers!

Not all those with SSA wish to deny basic freedoms of speech, religion and association to those who disagree with the gay activists’ ideology and agenda!

Christian charity for persons does not require affirmation of sinful or immoral activity!

Wednesday, December 29, 2004

France Passes Law against Inciting Hatred against Gays

France joins Sweden and Canada in prohibiting free speech or discussion of the issue of homosexuality. At least some are speaking about this spreading travesty:

Media watchdogs and the Roman Catholic Church fear the new law could lead to self-censorship. The church says it could prevent clerics from expressing opposition to the legalization of same-sex marriages and some journalist groups fear recriminations should reporters speak out.

The group Reporters Without Borders has previously denounced the law saying it limits freedom of expression.

Me: It scares me immensely that the hegemonic forces of gay activism are so blatantly rolling back fundamental human rights in Europe and Canada. Is our First Amendment jurisprudence strong enough to protect free speech in this country? Somehow I can't picture the ACLU and the rest of the Left standing up for freedom of speech when it comes to one of their favorite "victim" class -- those with same sex attraction. What a long way we have come from "clear and present danger," the notion that freedom of speech is supposed to protect speech we DON'T like, and principled African-American Supreme Court Justice Marshall's penning the opinion upholding the freedom of speech of white racists. (I hasten to add that I do not believe that those who have a principled moral objection to homosexual activity are anything like racists!)

Charles S.

Religious and European: An Unacceptable Combination?

Here is a transcript and video of Rocco Buttiglione's speech to the American Enterprise Institute. An excerpt:

Their battle for democracy is moral relativism, and if you are not a moral relativist, you are a second-class citizen. I do not want to emphasize my personal affair. After all, I have only renounced to a seat in the European Commission. There are things more valuable than a seat in the Commission, your faith, your conscience, first among them....

It seems that we are going back to that same kind of thought. We much impose absolute relativism. We must destroy all existing religions. And only then we may have peace. It is not a theoretical construction. A pastor in Sweden has been sentenced to one month in jail for having said that homosexuality is a sin. In France there was a law proposal, sending in jail up to four years, anybody who said that homosexuality is a sin, which makes life very difficult for Catholic priests, but I suspect also for many Jewish rabbis and pastors of other Christian denominations.

A free society is a society in which we are free to commit sin and we are free to say that sin is sin [emphasis added]. If one of these pillars falls, then society is no more free. So we have a consistent trend, mainly of Marxist origin. Marxists accepted that Marxism was wrong under the condition that nothing is right. And the distinction between right and wrong is abolished due to the intellectual history of (?), its transition from Marxism to deconstructionism.

Charles S.

Wednesday, December 22, 2004

That Other Church

Subtitled "Let's face it: Secularism is a religion -- Let's treat it as such,"
David Klinghoffer's article has it about right:

...All this would be fine—after all, America is a big country with plenty of room for every spiritual predilection—but for the tendency of secularists to use aggressive means in advancing their political agenda and spreading their faith...

Americans outside the secular fold need to develop responses to the encroachments of secularism in the public square. Mutual understanding is key. Many secularists live in isolated enclaves (Beverly Hills, San Francisco, certain New York City neighborhoods, etc.) with few members of other faiths present. Some sort of interfaith dialogue, matching representatives of secularism with believing Jews, Christians, and members of other religions, would do some good.

But it's not the entire solution. So that everyone can know where everyone else stands, it's time to start identifying the secular faithful as such. The word Secular should be capitalized, indicating a distinctive philosophical orientation. So, just as Mel Gibson is always referred to as a Catholic filmmaker, Michael Moore should be identified as a Secular one.

The influence of Secular institutions on education needs to be reexamined. Young children are plainly being targeted for conversion to Secularism, whether in schools or otherwise. The Anti-Defamation League—a group that is Jewish only in the sense that bagels are Jewish—has been advocating a reading list of books for children of kindergarten age through sixth grade. While the emphasis is ostensibly on "anti-bias education," any child who takes to heart the message of these books would be adopting, among other things, a bias in favor of the Secular teaching on homosexuality.

Two of the recommended books, for third-graders and under, are Gloria Goes to Gay Pride ("A young girl participates in the Gay Pride Day parade," as the ad's website summarizes the book) and My Two Uncles ("A young child's grandfather has trouble accepting the fact that his son is gay"). This amounts to targeting kids for conversion to the Secular teaching on homosexuality. Incidentally, "targeting for conversion" is what the ad charges that Christian missionaries want to do to Jews...

Charles S.

Gay Psychologist Urges Associates To Use Psychology As A Liberationist Tactic

The Fall, 2004 issue of the APA's Division 44 Newsletter, includes an essay by Judith M. Glassgold, Psy.D. urging her colleagues to think of psychology as a liberationist tactic to fight against social oppression and for social justice.
Writing in "'In dreams begin responsibilities': Psychology, agency, and activism," Glassgold suggests that therapists must make psychology "a liberatory experience, to be among those who offer solutions to problems of social justice."

She urges gay psychologists to adopt the philosophy of Liberation Psychology (Martin-Baro, 1994), which is rooted in ideologies from Latin and South American countries.

Psychologists must reject seeing individual personal problems and be willing to see these problems as the consequences of social injustice, says Glassgold. Psychotherapists must revise deterministic theories of social issues and "incorporate contextualist models that better explain concepts such as social power, freedom, agency, and resistance."

Gay psychologists must view the world as an oppressive place, and they must resist efforts of outside forces to label them. The goal should be to "create new meanings" and "social definitions" in order to liberate others from social structures that define what is normal or abnormal.

Glassgold believes that any system that says one sexual identity is normal and others are not, is oppressive and must be resisted. "Systems that attempt to define what is 'normal' are systems of statis that attempt to limit human potential. ... our theories must be embraced tentatively, as metaphors, not reified as truth or normalcy."

"We must focus on making psychology and psychotherapy more than just a Band-aid for broader social problems, but as an intrinsic part of social and personal liberation."

Me: There is a name for this sort of thing -- brainwashing.

Charles S.

Bible To Be Banned As Hate Speech?

Sher Zieve provides a good summary of the legal actions taken against the free speech rights of those who object to homosexual activity in Canada, Sweden and Philadelphia. There is a video of the arrested Christian protesters in Philadelphia here.

Charles S.

Monday, December 20, 2004

UCC isn't Totally Welcoming

The Boston Globe had a priceless letter to the editor today, illustrating perfectly the liberal mindset on religion and homosexuality:

Regarding the Dec. 2 front-page article "Two networks bar church ad welcoming gays": While I feel the TV stations are circumventing the social issue, I do not feel the article should lead one to believe that all United Church of Christ churches embrace the gay and lesbian lifestyle. Unlike the Catholic Church, the UCC doesn't have an autonomous hierarchy that dictates or mandates church policy. The Massachusetts Conference and the General Synod recommend policy guidelines. The individual churches remain independent to establish and carry out their own policies and procedures. The UCC churches in Natick and Wellesley are wholeheartedly welcoming churches. There are some UCC churches, however, that draw a distinct line between acceptance and tolerance. I think of these churches not yet as open and affirming, but rather as ajar and promising. When the minds in the pews meld with the minds of the highest court in the land, the UCC will truly become a wholly welcoming denomination.

Gotta love that last line -- forget that Christians should be following Christ and the Gospels, modern liberals know the true source of all religious and moral authority with whose mind we should meld -- the Supreme Court! By the way, I agree with the writer that the UCC is not welcoming -- by demonizing other Christian churches and misrepresenting that Jesus wanted inclusion without repentance of sins, the UCC is being most unwelcoming and uncivil to those supposedly benighted people who are exercising their constitutional right actually to believe Christian moral doctrine.

Charles S.

Saturday, December 18, 2004

I Wasn't Looking Down on Middle America

Robert Kuttner defends himself from charges by George F. Will that he looks down his nose at middle Americans, as exemplified by the following statement of Kuttner:

"Bill Clinton won election by declaring, as a matter of values, that people who work hard and play by the rules should not be poor. Middle America forgave him for treating gays as people."

Kuttner's response goes on:

Will's column began, "Some liberals cannot control their insuppressible reflex to look down their upturned noses at the American electorate." He added, "Kuttner could not resist a spasm of moral vanity. He had to disparage 'middle America,' which means most of America, as so bigoted it denies the humanity of gays."

Surely the erudite Will must know that throughout our history, large numbers of Americans have been prejudiced against blacks, Jews, Catholics, Indians, Hispanics and gays, as well as against liberated women...

Not long ago most Americans indeed denied the humanity of gays. Until very recently, gays were the last minority that could be openly ridiculed in polite company...

Either liberals affront traditionalist America by advancing gay rights, or liberals patronize middle America by questioning whether traditionalists fully accept gays. Obviously, both charges can't be true.

Me: Kuttner's entire tone simply reeks of intolerance and demonization, if not dehumanization, of those with traditional religious or moral beliefs in sexuality. (Perhaps he had his own and other liberals' ridicule of Christian believers in mind with his words, "Until very recently, gays were the last minority that could be openly ridiculed in polite company.") Basically, anybody who has religious or moral objections to homosexual activity are by that very belief denying the "humanity" of those with same sex atttraction. The mere belief in sinfulness of actions is equated with prejudice and bigotry against persons (which may exist in some cases but does not necessarily the case -- one can sincerely hate the sin and love the sinner).

Middle Americans, in holding this belief (which of itself harms no one any more than the belief that murder is wrong harms anyone), are held by Kuttner to be exactly the same as slaveholders in the pre-Civil War south, in which there truly was dehumanization of a class of people who were viewed as property. To equate such moral beliefs with slaveholding shows a complete lack of moral perspective quite common on the Left.

The true voice of liberal tolerance would recognize that human sexuality is a complex subject on which people hold and have a right to hold differing religious and moral beliefs. Liberals should respect people's right to disagree and not seek to impose their views on others or demonize those who hold traditional beliefs.

On the substance of the charge, I would go further and assert to Kuttner that the gay activist ideology is utterly dehumanizing of those with same sex attraction. It makes us less than fully human, elevating mere animal sex drive and lust to the very center of our public and personal identities, diminishing everything that makes us truly human and valuable in God's sight, such as our capacity for compassion, reason and constructive creativity.

Charles S.

Thursday, December 16, 2004

Christians Face 47 Years in Prison

Apparently there have been some developments in case of some Christians' protesting a "gay pride" event in Philadelphia. According to the American Family Association:

The federal appeals court in Philadelphia denied emergency relief despite video footage [the Christians' attorney] calls “undisputed evidence” that shows the Christians cooperating with police and continually being harassed by the Pink Angels, a group of homosexuals organized to impede the gospel message. Philadelphia city prosecutor in the case, Charles Ehrlich, attacked the Christians as “hateful” and referred to preaching the Bible as “fighting words,” the judge agreed.

Charges were dropped against the remaining seven apparently because they were not seen quoting scripture on the videotape.

Charles S.

Pro-Gay, Pro-Values, Pro-Bush

As someone whom Richard Tafel once compared to the Taliban in a private email to me, I'm not necessarily Mr. Tafel's biggest fan. However, he does have an interesting article in National Review Online yesterday in which he raises some good points. First, he points out that many with same sex attraction voted for President Bush despite the President's lack of endorsement from all the gay activist groups, including the group Mr. Tafel used to head, the Log Cabin "Republicans." I'm glad to have that pointed out again, because it shows, as I have stated before, that the gay activists do not speak for all of those with same sex attraction. He also correctly identifies the patent phoniness of John Kerry:

Social conservatives aren't the yahoos the Kerry campaign took them for. Senator Kerry became a cartoon of what the Left thinks of the Right. His team believed that by gay-bashing, church-going, and geese-shooting, Kerry could make conservative voters believe he was one of them. It didn't work.

Gays didn't believe Senator Kerry either. They gave him a wink and a nod as if to say, "If you need to bash us to beat George W. then do it — anything to win." Gay journalists and leaders rushed to defend Senator Kerry's actions as politically astute. They too believed Senator Kerry was pretending to be a social conservative to get elected.

Mr. Tafel also rightly calls to task the typical gay activist demonization of Republicans and conservatives, as here (although I reject Mr. Tafel's notion of a "gay community" -- there may be a practicing homosexual community, but that does not include all who experience same sex attraction):

Now that the election has passed, the part of the gay community that has built a movement on the demonization of Republicans will not engage in self-reflection. It will tell its followers that George W. Bush won because he gay-bashed. This will only convince the administration that it has nothing to gain from engaging the gay community in dialogue. A rigid standoff will ensue, and the gay community can look forward to four more years in the wilderness.

Mr. Tafel's analysis for the votes for President Bush among those with same sex attraction is that national security trumped moral values:

Gays who voted for President Bush had a simple logic. They recognized that both candidates opposed gay marriage for political purposes. Their primary concern was the war on terror. They believed that we are engaged in a war for the future of our country and our way of life. They believed that the rise of militant Islam is a real and deadly threat. They believed that our country, with all its faults, is a force for good in the world. They believed that our enemy cannot be reasoned with. They believed that we needed a leader who understood the world in terms of moral values, and they didn't scoff when the president used the words "good" and "evil" to describe the battle against terror. They realized we've made mistakes, but also realized that the only thing worse than making mistakes is not even trying. Many gays understood all of this and voted for President Bush, showing that they are people as well as gay people and that they have concerns beside their group interests. They wanted someone who in the difficult months ahead would stand firm in his beliefs.

I am glad that unlike many gay activists, Mr. Tafel recognizes that those with same sex attraction are entire human beings and not just animals solely motivated by their sex drive and the gay political agenda. And it may be that Mr. Tafel correctly describes many practicing and open homosexuals who voted for Mr. Bush. However, if by the term "gay" Mr Tafel refers to all who have same sex attraction, Mr. Tafel is too broad and sweeping in concluding that all those with same sex attraction who voted for Mr. Bush did so because of national security alone. Some of us with same sex attraction, and I know that I am not the only one, voted for President Bush on moral values as well as national security. Those with same sex attraction have the right to believe homosexual activity immoral and to believe that the government should not promote it through civil same sex marriage. Even if we are a minority of those with same sex attraction, we do exist, and I believe our numbers are greater than generally thought since those who reject the gay activist ideology may be more likely to choose not to make their sexual proclivities their defining public characteristic.

Charles S.

Mom Ousted for Taping Gay Acceptance `Lies'

Some parents have been caught secretly videotaping the supposedly voluntary day of gay activist ideology indoctrination in the public high school of Newton North. My question, were parents given clear advance warning of this type of indoctrination session that might be contrary to their religious and moral beliefs?

Charles S.

Zeal of Approval: Robert Novak Comes Unhinged

Andrew Sullivan takes issue with Robert Novak's criticism of the White House for supposedly snubbing Mr. Buttiglione, mentioned previously in this blog. To his credit, Mr. Sullivan does state that he believes Buttiglione to be unfairly treated by the European Parliament. That doesn't prevent Mr. Sullivan, however, from making some wonted gratuitous slurs such as wrongly accusing Robert Novak, as one who opposes the changing of the millenia-old definition of marriage to include same sex couples, of being primarily motivated by "discrimination," and using demonizing labels for traditional religious believers, such as "theoconservatives":

Does Novak agree that public officials should never discriminate against homosexual citizens? Silly question. The whole point of the columnist's favored social policies is to discriminate against homosexuals. ...

And it says something about the current hubris and parochialism among the theoconservative right that a leading columnist like Novak should think he should.

Charles S.

Homosexual Pressure May Have Forced Target's Salvation Army Eviction

I had been suspecting that the gay activist contingent may be one of the unspoken movers behind the efforts to stop Salvation Army public soliciting of charitable contributions -- they had been previously criticized for practicing their religious beliefs and not giving domestic partner benefits to practicing homosexual "couples". Apparently I'm not the only one. Of course here, the Left's more general anti-Christian agenda meshes perfectly with the more specific gay activist concern.

Charles S.

Questions About UCC Ad

This good rebuttal to the UCC television advertisement mentioned previously on this blog has some well-aimed quotes:

Diane Knippers, President of the Institute on Religion and Democracy and Vice-Chair of the ACR, explained: “We defend the right of the UCC to communicate its message in mainstream media. But we believe that this ad is dishonest and insulting to other Christian churches. It violates the UCC’s stated commitment to respectful ecumenical dialogue. The UCC should voluntarily pull this ad.”...

Others also have raised questions about the content of the UCC ad, including Pastor Dan Baker, First Lutheran Church, Albert Lea, Minn. In a letter to Shafer and other ELCA leaders, he questioned the ELCA’s defense of the ad, as a matter of ethics:

"It is troubling to think that the UCC would chose to insult other Christians for holding different Biblical views as their major method of TV outreach in light of our current cultural climate of debate and discernment. Certainly they could have found a better way to present themselves rather than mocking others in this way."

He disagreed with the ad’s theological content and added his own comment:

"‘Jesus didn't turn people away,’ he sought to turn them around from sin and death and toward holiness and righteousness through the power of faith in the living God."

Charles S.

Tuesday, December 14, 2004

Confessions of a Gay Conservative: An Interview with Steve Yuhas

Interview here. While Mr. Yuhas does not embrace chastity, it is refreshing to hear that there are self-identifying "gays" who object to same sex "marriage and the indecency of "gay pride" parades, and who support "don't ask, don't tell" as a sensible policy in the military.

Charles S.

White House Snubs European Friend

Robert Novak thinks the White House "snubbed" Signore Buttiglione.

Charles S.

Canadian Anglican Bishop Upset that Courts Won't Force Religions to Allow Gay 'Marriage'

So Canadian Anglican Bishop Ingham opposes freedom of religion. More on this here. Ingham has a particularly Orwellian way of describing his lack of tolerance for traditional religious believers:

Ingham also says if the law passes, it will help what he calls "tolerant forces" put pressure on the Anglican Church to deal with gay marriage.

Charles S.

Monday, December 13, 2004

Public Schools Use Sex-Ed to Promote Bias Agendas Regarding Homosexuality

Dr. Warren Throckmorton writes an analysis of the type of indoctrination taking place in public school sex education as to the morality of homosexual activity.

Charles S.

Friday, December 10, 2004

Living Under Fascism

Presumably the notion of John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and the Left generally that separation of church and state requires that religious leaders be silent on any political issues does not apply to this Unitarian minister's rant calling America "fascist". Boy, it's certainly a good thing he got this out on the web before they come to take him away to be gassed in the concentration camps:

I mean to persuade you that the style of governing into which America has slid is most accurately described as fascism. ...

Charles S.

Polyamory on the March

Could it be that Andrew Sullivan was wrong and Rick Santorum was right about the slippery slope to official polyamory that same sex "marriage" will likely lead us to? The following by Alyssa Ford:

During the 1996 congressional debate on the Defense of Marriage Act, gay rights activist Andrew Sullivan was asked if legalized gay marriage wouldn't simply send society sliding down a "slippery slope," where the next thing on the agenda would be legalized polygamy. "To the best of my knowledge, there is no polygamists' rights organization poised to exploit same-sex marriage and return the republic to polygamous abandon," Sullivan retorted.

It wouldn't be the last time that a gay rights activist would publicly distance the movement from other sexual minorities. In 2003, Republican Senator Rick Santorum unloaded the same sort of argument on an Associated Press reporter: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything." In response, David Smith, the communications director of the Human Rights Campaign, said that it was outrageous for Santorum to put being gay on the same legal and moral plane as a person who commits incest. "That is repugnant in our view and not right," he said.

There are a few important lessons to be gleaned here. First, social conservatives see the slippery slope as a poison arrow that can prevent all-out gay marriage, and they will use it again and again. Second, gay marriage advocates will say anything to distance gays and lesbians from other sexual minorities: the polygamous, the swingers, the S&M practitioners, and those rare couples that happen to be related.

This arms-length strategy is good PR. The reality, though, is that non-gay sexual minority groups are doing exactly what Sullivan said was improbable in 1996: they have formed political organizations to fight for their rights.

Charles S.


Thursday, December 09, 2004

David Frum on Gay Marriage and Disingenuousness

David Frum is right on the moeny in pointing out the undemocratic way in which same sex "marriage" was imposed on Canada, as well as the disingenuousness with which gay activists tactically disguise their long term goals, e.g., Andrew Sullivan's sudden embrace of federalism as the most convenient tactic for spreading same sex "marriage" at this time.

Charles S.

Groups Debate Slower Strategy on Gay Rights

Click here for a link to this New York Times article about a recent Human Rights Campaign conference on whither the gay activist agenda in the wake of the election. One quote:

"When you put a face to our issues, that's when we get support," he said. "We're not going to win at the ballot box until we start winning at the water cooler and in the church pews."

The gay activists and their propagandists in the liberal media like the New York Times simply don't get it. For them, the overriding and obvious goal that all clear-thinking people must accept is to get the rubes to believe and sign on to the gay activist ideology by whatever means necessary, whether it be government indoctrination or more subtle propaganda efforts. What the gay activists simply cannot accept is that people have the right in a free society to believe that homosexual activity is immoral and that the government should not promote it through gay civil marriage. That belief does not stop active homosexuals from doing whatever they want in the privacy of their homes. If gay activists were truly tolerant and decent people they would not be trying to force believers in traditional morality to drop their beliefs or ridicule and demonize the same for such beliefs.

Charles S.


France A Step Closer to Banning Homophobic Speech

France is about to become another in the growing list of once free democracies that are outlawing freedom of speech as regards homosexuality. Shame on them!

Charles S.

More on Rocco Buttiglione

Father Sirico has some good quotes:

"Rocco Buttiglione was the target of a malicious and profoundly unfair campaign that increasingly resembles the assault on religious liberty in America," said Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President of the Acton Institute. "Buttiglione was borked because he articulated genuine answers to questions about his personal beliefs even though those beliefs would have no role in his work. There is a critical difference between a healthy separation of church and state and a radical secularism that denies all public manifestation of religion."

"We are seeing something similar in America" said Sirico "especially in the last few weeks when numerous public intellectuals and journalists insist on describing the integration of faith, character, and morality as theocracy. Secularism is a value that religious leaders recognize but so much of the secularism that we see manifested in European and American public life is intolerant and anti-Christian."

More on Buttiglione here. However, John Derbyshire finds Rocco too Catholic for his taste:

I also met Sgr. Buttiglione the other day. While I admire his principled stand on the wording of the EU Constitution, being in a room with him for an hour left me recalling why Mary Tudor is the favorite monarch of practically no Englishmen at all.

With all his admirable qualities, Sgr. Buttiglione is no friend of the Anglosphere. He belongs to that class of European who see the EU as a rebirth of the Holy Roman Empire. Now, the Holy Roman Empire was not without its good points; but liberty, democracy, and the advance of knowledge fourished better outside it than inside it.

Charles S.

Canadian Court Approves Same-Sex Marriage

A little bit more of western civilization crumbled today...

Charles S.

Sunday, December 05, 2004

Tim Graham on Church Bouncers

Tim Graham on the Corner makes some good points about the United Church of Christ's ad campaign, mentioned below on this blog:

...ABC actually covered the UCC ad/publicity stunt as a news story about free speech being chilled by "fear of Christian conservatives." It should have been covered, but as a very unique phenomenon: a church running a negative, mudslinging ad against other churches. Where are the watchdogs who hate 30-second ads that lie? Where are the reporters who ask for evidence that conservative Christian churches have bouncers, or perhaps less metaphorically, have members or preachers who tell you to leave? Or that conservative Christian churches are racist and really don't want minority members? (What the UCC is really trying to say, behind the smear, is we'll never really make you uncomfortable by talking about sinners requiring repentance.) I can't imagine this would be the tone of ABC coverage if say, Jerry Falwell's church made a 30-second ad saying liberal churches weren't really acting like Jesus would.

We should point out the obvious: the First Amendment does not extend to the right to have your commercial accepted for broadcast. What's the weirdest thing, though, is this: ABC has a blanket policy against any religious ads. They have a ban. (They admitted that in the middle of their stories.) So how can they be the ones casting "censorship" aspersions on ANYONE else, since they are, in this instance, the "censors"? ...

Charles S.

Europe's Theo-cons Rally their Forces

Despite the title's snarky reference to "theo-cons," which apparently means persons who have the audacity to actually believe in a religion, this article has some good quotes:

"Why is it that a Catholic man can't become an EU commissioner, while a former communist can?"

"Today it would not be possible for the Christian founding fathers of a united Europe, Konrad Adenauer, Robert Schuman, and Alcide de Gasperi, to become EU commissioners."

Charles S.

Thursday, December 02, 2004

The Most Influential Philosopher Alive

Marvin Olasky has an important if disturbing article about tenured Princeton professor and infanticide, polyamory, bestiality and necrophilia advocate Peter Singer.

Charles S.

Church Recruiting New Members With TV Ad

From the above article:

The liberal-leaning UCC began the $1.7 million, 3 1/2-week advertising campaign on Wednesday. The 30-second ad shows a muscular bouncer working a rope line outside a handsome but nameless church, deciding who may enter.

``No, step aside, please,'' he says to two men holding hands.

Across the screen comes the message, ``Jesus didn't turn people away. Neither do we.'' The final scene shows two women embracing.

Me: No Christian Church excludes those with homosexual proclivities, but all Christian Churches have historically called certain sexual activity, namely sex outside of the context of a heterosexual marriage, sinful. So is the UCC saying that to be "inclusive", we must not only welcome the sinner but eliminate the idea of sin? That would be the logical conclusion of what they are suggesting. And their reference to Jesus is simply ludicrous. Jesus did NOT say that there was no such thing as sin. He called all to Himself, but He also called for repentance and for sinners to sin no more.

Charles S.

The Tyranny of Same-Sex Marriage

Paul Albers raises some good points about the undemocratic way in which same sex "marriage" is being imposed, and the threats to the liberties of those who oppose same sex "marriage:"

...The Canadian government has engaged in its own arm-twisting. Prior to the federal election, officials of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency met with religious leaders opposed to same-sex marriage. These leaders were warned that taking a stand on the issue would be viewed as a partisan act that would endanger their tax-exempt status. No similar warning was given to religious leaders who supported the government's position however.

In every case in Canada and the United States, where same-sex marriages are allowed, it is only because a handful of judges have forced it into the law books. Prime Minister Martin seems happy to continue the trend. If all things go as Martin wants there will be no direct public voice and elected officials will only have the chance to cast a vote after the courts submit a reference activists can use to intimidate any MP who would opposes it.

Gay activists like to justify their actions by claiming that this is a human rights issue, so the courts should decide instead of the people and their rulings should be respected. What they fail to account for in Canada is that the Supreme Court of Canada has already stated "marriage is by nature heterosexual" (Egan v. Canada). Where is their respect for that ruling?

Some proponents of redefining marriage have asked just how the change will impact that religious, traditional family down the street. They aren't going to instantly transform into homosexuals or seek a divorce because of a change in the law, so why oppose something that won't affect them?

That is a very low standard by which to measure right and wrong by, but even against that benchmark, same-sex marriage comes up short. If same-sex marriage is declared a constitutional right, family members risk the nightmare of being dragged before a Human Rights Tribunal if they refuse to consider and treat a same-sex marriage as being every bit as real and valid as their own. They will have that threat hanging over them even if their views are based on religious convictions, making them prisoners of conscience in a nation that has made it unconstitutional for them to live their faith.

Some have already had to choose between their convictions and their careers. British Columbian marriage commissioners were told last year that they must agree to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies or find a new job. Twelve commissioners resigned, unwilling to violate their conscience for a paycheck. Now the same sequence of events is playing out in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

It is not hard to envision a future where people are excluded on the basis of religion from becoming elected officials, teachers, police, and civil servants if this trend is allowed to continue. If same-sex marriage is passed against the public will, it will require further tyranny to prevent its reversal. In that sense, same-sex marriage is very much a human rights issue, and if human rights really do win out, there will be no redefinition of marriage.

Charles S.

Wednesday, December 01, 2004

Support of Gays Pushed in Schools

More on the spreading indoctrination of public school students with the gay activist ideology.

Charles S.

Support of Gays Pushed in Schools

More on the spreading indoctrination of public school students with the gay activist ideology.

Charles S.

Special Section: Rocco Buttiglione

The Acton Institute has a good roundup webpage with information and links on "l'affaire Buttiglione".

Charles S.

Perversion Gets Major Cleansing in Dishonest Film

Robert Knight rightly takes to task the new movie on the charlatan Alfred Kinsey.

Charles S.

<< # St. Blog's Parish ? >>