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!

Friday, May 20, 2005

Sexuality Issues don't Belong in Schools

Good article by Ilana Freedman:

...How can we expect our children to grow up healthy, with sound minds and hearts, when the schools we have taught them to respect and obey have taken it upon themselves to teach them values that contradict our own core beliefs on issues of right and wrong?

I was raised to respect every person, not by the cut of his clothes or by the church in which he prays, but by the goodness of his heart. I am not homophobic, nor would I deny anyone the right to live as he chooses. But I was brought up to believe that your freedom ends where my nose begins. The right of a small minority to live as they choose is unimpeachable. But they have no right to impose their values on me or my children, or to demand my approval.

The gay population in this country has been estimated at approximately 3 to 6 percent. Yet they have managed to hijack our schools and impose their values on our children. And in the name of political correctness, they demand that we accept this.

I don't know if Jennifer will ever be able to find herself. I do know that today she is a confused and unhappy young woman who has broken with her family and that she is as alone and lost as she has ever been. We will never know if her "coming out" was an act of rebellion or self-discovery. But it is clear that she was encouraged to cross that invisible line that separated her from her roots by the very school system that was supposed to keep her safe.

My children are grown and now have children of their own. My advice to them is to be very watchful. I tell them to pay attention to the new school programs that are described by vague and innocuous names like "character education" and "diversity training."

I want my grandchildren to be kind and caring about other human beings. I want them to respect other children and allow them to be who they are. But I want those who oppose my traditional ways to afford me the same respect and keep their sexuality issues outside of the public schools.

Me: My only quibble is that it is not the entirety of persons with same sex attraction who are imposing these doctrinaire views on homosexual activity in public schools, it is the gay activists. Don't blame all of us! I, for one, want nothing to do with the sickening gay ideological agenda being forced down children's throats in public schools these days.

Charles S.

Wednesday, May 18, 2005

Free Speech Watch: Canada

Saskatchewan Man Convicted of “Hate Speech” for Flyer Warning of Harm from Sodomy

Charles S.

Sadly, It's True

Yes, it's true. Homosexual pornographic material was distributed to minors at the GLSEN event at Brookline High School referred to below. Get a load of this statement accompanying the Brookline Superintendent of Schools' apology:

We were very pleased to be able to host this GLSEN event. However, I am very concerned that the conversation about this conference not focus on this document but, instead, remain on the positive nature of the experience, which was very well received by our attending students. Moreover, I want to be very clear that, while we will revisit our procedures for granting access to outside groups wanting to utilize our facilities, we will continue to emphasize our core values in all that we do here in Brookline. Specifically, our core value of "Respect for Human Differences" demands that we not only ensure that all students learn in an environment that is safe, respectful and supportive, but that we continually seek out ways of educating our students, parents and community members of the need to respect the views and lifestyles of all of our citizens.

Me: What slippery doubletalk! Basically, the Superintendant is saying that they were sorry they got caught, and they hope that this will not be used to prevent their continued indoctrination of young people in the morality and normality of homosexual activity. And also, speaking of respect for differences, when have these public school officials and their gay activist friends EVER shown one ounce of respect or tolerance for those with traditional religious or moral beliefs who believe, as they have a right to do in a free society, that homosexual activity is immoral?

Charles S.

Tuesday, May 17, 2005

'Little Black Book' Teaches Kids 'Gay' Sex

Yet more government-promoted gay activism in Bay State public schools...

Charles S.

Sex and the County

Hadley Arkes weighs in on Montgomery County, Maryland's attempt to establish the liberal religion on homosexuality.

Charles S.

Monday, May 16, 2005

Sex for Dummies

John Leo has a good take on the recent liberal homosexualist indoctrination attempt in Montgomery County (Maryland) public schools:

...Even apart from church-state entanglement, the Montgomery curriculum is out of line in dismissing moral claims as myths. On what basis can a state institution tell parents and children that their morality is faulty? In dealing with homosexuality, the job of the school is to teach tolerance, not to disparage traditional views. Gays are our neighbors and should be treated with respect. Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, one of two local groups opposing the curriculum, makes this point clearly. "Teaching respect for persons with same-sex attraction is appropriate and right," the group says. "But demanding affirmation of a homosexual orientation and behavior goes beyond the ethic of tolerance." The curriculum does in fact teach approval of homosexuality. Understandably, gays want that approval, but it can't be imposed by state schools...

Charles S.

Friday, May 13, 2005

Courting the FMA

Stanley Kurtz has a good analysis of the latest federal court case overturning Nebraska's consitutional amendment on same-sex marriage. It was of course only a matter of time before federal judicial activists got into the act of promoting same sex marriage -- why let state judges have all the fun? This latest case simply points out the pressing need for a federal constitutional amendment protecting the traditional and universal definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

Charles S.

Thursday, May 12, 2005

Freedom of Speech and Religion on Homosexuality Still in the Balance in Sweden

Monday, May 09, 2005

Montgomery County's Establishment of Homosexualist Religion

It's worse than I thought. Eugene Volokh has the goods on the effort of Montgomery County, Maryland to preach its own liberal interpretation of the Bible and what should be the appropriate religious views on sexual morality:

A. The curriculum involves the public school unconstitutionally taking a stand on theological questions (as the court correctly held). Consider this excerpt from a "Myths and Facts" handout that was part of the curriculum:

"Myth: Homosexuality is a sin."

"Facts: The Bible contains six passages which condemn homosexual behavior. The Bible also contains numerous passages condemning heterosexual behavior. Theologians and Biblical scholars continue to differ on many Biblical interpretations. They agree on one thing, however. Jesus said absolutely nothing at all about homosexuality. Among the many things deemed an abomination are adultery, incest, wearing clothing made from more than one kind of fiber, and earing shellfish, like shrimp and lobster."

"Religion has often been misused to justify hatred and oppression. Less than a half a century ago, Baptist churches (among others) in this country defended racial segregation on the basis that it was condoned by the Bible. Early Christians were not hostile to homosexuals. Intolerance became the dominant attitude only after the Twelfth Century. Today, many people no longer tolerate generalizations about homosexuality as pathology or sin. Few would condemn heterosexuality as immoral — despite the high incidence of rape, incest, child abuse, adultery, family violence, promiscuity, and venereal disease among heterosexuals. Fortunately, many within organized religions are beginning to address the homophobia of the church. The Nation Council of Churches of Christ, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the Unitarian Universalist Association, the Society of Friends (Quakers), and the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches support full civil rights for gay men and lesbians, as they do for everyone else."

This material, which the school would apparently be conveying as its own views,

- Describes one interpretation of the Bible as "myth."

- Suggests that the most important question in interpreting the Bible is what Jesus said, and that the Bible's use of "abomination" in different contexts should lead us to think that the items thus labeled are morally equivalent — not implausible claims about Scriptural interpretation, but nonetheless claims about Scriptural interpretation.

- Implicitly — but I think quite strongly — suggests a particular reading of the Bible is theologically correct.

- Condemns particular religious groups by name, not just as part of a discussion of history, but in an attempt to discredit the present religious teachings of at least some religious groups (quite possibly the same ones).

- Specifically praises by name certain denominations — again, not just in a context which seems to be describing the facts, but one which suggests that their theology is more sound.

The Court has repeatedly held that the Establishment Clause bars public schools from endorsing and disapproving of theological beliefs. Schools are quite free to express the view on whether homosexuality is wrong and on whether hostility to homosexuality is wrong; that some view on a secular topic corresponds to or is opposed to a religion's view doesn't keep the school from teaching that view. But schools are not free to express views on how the Bible should be interpreted, what is or is not sin from the Biblical perspective, and which religious groups have good interpretations of the Bible and which have bad ones.

B. The curriculum contains at least one factual error, and quite possibly others (though as to the others the matter is more complex). The curriculum says that "a significant percentage of the population is gay, lesbian or bisexual (Approximately 1 in 10)." Earlier, the curriculum makes clear that it treats whether "a person is a homosexual" as a matter of what constitutes his "long-term sexual orientation," not whether someone has had at least one same-sex attraction or experience. Under that definition, the best evidence is that the about 2-3% of all U.S. residents are homosexual; the number might be somewhat different in Canada, but I suspect not vastly. The 10% estimate has long been discredited.

C. More importantly, the curriculum is chock full of unsound reasoning, the very sort of thing we shouldn't be teaching kids. For starters, labeling moral claims as "Myth" (e.g., "Myth: Children raised by gay men and lesbians will be exposed to an 'immoral' environment") and "Fact" (e.g., "Fact: Morality is concerned with principles of 'right' and 'wrong' behavior") strikes me as erroneous and unhelpful. Even if one believe that certain things are objectively immoral, one should recognize that such a judgment is not the sort of thing that one should label "fact"; if anything, we should be teaching students to better distinguish facts from value judgments, even while recognizing that value judgments may be very important and even objectively right.

Moreover, consider this item: "Myth: If you are 'straight,' you can become a homosexual." "Fact: Most experts in the field have concluded that sexual orientation is not a choice." That "most experts" conclude something doesn't make it a fact; one would think that the fact that some experts conclude the opposite should be occasion for students to express some doubt and healthy skepticism, but the curriculum tells them that, no, most experts say it, so it's a fact.

Or how about this? "Myth: Lesbians, gay men and bisexuals do not make good parents." "Fact: One out of four families has a lesbian, gay or bisexual in the immediate family. Heterosexual parents are consistently not found to be more loving or caring than gay parents." I'd hope that any teacher who teaches logical reasoning would give a pretty low grade to a paper that says that. The first part of the "Fact" is a non sequitur (even if it's factually accurate, which I doubt); whether or not a family has a lesbian, gay or bisexual "in the immediate family" tells us nothing about whether lesbians, gays, and bisexuals make good parents. The second part is at least logically related to the attempt to rebut the "Myth" — but how? Even if it true, it merely shows that heterosexual parents are not more loving or caring than gay parents (which is a somewhat imprecise way, I take it, of saying "lesbian, gay male, or bisexual parents"); but there are lots of other ways in which people can be not very good parents than by being un-loving or un-caring...

Me: I don't see how this is anything other than liberals using the government to impose their religious views on others.

Charles S.

Friday, May 06, 2005

AP on Left-Wing Anti-Christian Conference at CUNY

Gotta love this quote:

The Rev. Bob Edgar, a former Democratic congressman and general secretary of the National Council of Churches, strongly favors religious politicking but said in an interview that he draws the line when groups say "we are right and everyone else is evil" or claim that "another point of view is illegitimate."

Sounds like a perfect description of the intolerant, traditional-Christian-hating left, from Howard Dean on down to Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, Paul Krugman, Bill Maher, Andrew Sullivan, etc.

Charles S.

Judge Blocks Md. School Health Program

This the Montgomery County, Maryland public school homosexuality program referred to many times before on this blog:

...U.S. District Judge Alexander Williams agreed with two groups that sued contending such discussions gave preference of religions that are tolerant of homosexuality over those that reject it...

Charles S.

Wednesday, May 04, 2005

Why I'm Rooting for the Religious Right

A very important editorial from James Taranto:

I am not a Christian, or even a religious believer, and my opinions on social issues are decidedly middle-of-the-road. So why do I find myself rooting for the "religious right"? I suppose it is because I am put off by self-righteousness, closed-mindedness, and contempt for democracy and pluralism--all of which characterize the opposition to the religious right.

One can disagree with religious conservatives on abortion, gay rights, school prayer, creationism and any number of other issues, and still recognize that they have good reason to feel disfranchised. This isn't the same as the oft-heard complaint of "anti-Christian bigotry," which is at best imprecise, since American Christians are all over the map politically. But those who hold traditionalist views have been shut out of the democratic process by a series of court decisions that, based on constitutional reasoning ranging from plausible to ludicrous, declared the preferred policies of the secular left the law of the land.

For the most part, the religious right has responded in good civic-minded fashion: by organizing, becoming politically active, and supporting like-minded candidates. This has required exquisite discipline and patience, since changing court-imposed policies entails first changing the courts, a process that can take decades. Even then, "conservative" judges are not about to impose conservative policies; the best the religious right can hope for is the opportunity to make its case through ordinary democratic means....

Charles S.

When Columnists Cry 'Jihad'

John McCandlish Phillips quite rightly calls journalists, such as Christian-hating Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich and Paul Krugman of the New York Times, to task for their unfounded, unnecessary and shrill anti-Christian bias:

I have been looking at myself, and millions of my brethren, fellow evangelicals along with traditional Catholics, in a ghastly arcade mirror lately -- courtesy of this newspaper and the New York Times. Readers have been assured, among other dreadful things, that we are living in "a theocracy" and that this theocratic federal state has reached the dire level of -- hold your breath -- a "jihad."

In more than 50 years of direct engagement in and observation of the major news media I have never encountered anything remotely like the fear and loathing lavished on us by opinion mongers in these world-class newspapers in the past 40 days. If I had a $5 bill for every time the word "frightening" and its close lexicographical kin have appeared in the Times and The Post, with an accusatory finger pointed at the Christian right, I could take my stack to the stock market...

Charles S.

Parents File Suit to Stop Sex Ed

A parents group yesterday filed a federal lawsuit to stop the Montgomery County [Maryland] public school system from teaching a sex-education course that the group says advocates homosexuality and dismisses religious viewpoints.

"It's not a curriculum to give kids knowledge. This curriculum is an indoctrination program," said Rockville lawyer John Garza, vice president of Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum (CRC). "It's setting forth a viewpoint on sex and homosexuality that goes beyond impartation of knowledge."

CRC filed suit in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt seeking a temporary injunction to block a pilot program in three middle schools and three high schools. The pilot program was to have begun tomorrow, but a schools spokesman yesterday said it will begin Monday.

"We believe this curriculum takes a reasonable approach to the issue and that everyone's viewpoints were carefully considered when creating it," schools spokesman Brian Edwards said.

A hearing on the lawsuit is scheduled for tomorrow before Judge Alexander Williams Jr.

The lawsuit says the curriculum violates students' free speech rights and the First Amendment protection against the establishment of religion.

"Part of free speech is the right to remain silent," Mr. Garza said, adding that students who opt out of the course will be assumed to have religious objections or be "ex-gay" by their peers.

"It's unconstitutional to force people to declare their religious beliefs or their sexual orientation," he said. "If you're a Catholic, if you're a fundamentalist Christian, if you're a Muslim or a Jew, you gotta go down the hall." ...

Charles S.

Andrew Sullivan has gone off the deep end ...

and Jonah Goldberg rightly calls him to account for it:

Andrew Sullivan writes:

"Hatred of open and proud homosexuals is intrinsic to Islamist fundamentalism, as it is to Christian fundamentalism. The struggle against both is the same one - at home and abroad."

I'm sorry. But:

1. Even if hatred of homosexuality were intrinsic to Islamist and Christian fundamentalism, the fight against Islamic fundamentalism isn't about homosexuality. It's just not and no matter how much you care about the issue, it won't ever be.

2. Islamic fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism aren't the same thing. They can both be "bad" but that doesn't mean they are the same. Depending on what you mean by Christian fundamentalism, I don't think it's bad. I certainly don't think it's bad if you go by Andrew's expansive use of the phrase. But even if I did, I would recognize some important differences between the two. Like: Christian fundmentalists have not constructed a grand theological construct to justify mass murder in the modern era. No followers of Jerry Falwell are suicide bombers. This is not a minor distinction. Christian fundamentalism gave birth to the Protestant reformation, individual liberty, the American nation, the modern American university, and the like. This is not a minor distinction either.

3. Writing things like this makes it nearly impossible to defend Sullivan from the charge that he lets homosexuality color his perceptions of every other argument and issue.

Addendum: It occurs to me that a charitable explanation of Sullivan's statement is that he's trying to persuade liberals -- gay or otherwise -- to understand the threat from Islamic fundamentalism in terms they can appreciate. Alas, Andrew's recent diatribes against fundamentalism don't really jibe with this interpretation. And, besides that wouldn't absolve the slander or inaccuracy.

Me: I would add further to what Jonah said and state that of course Christianity does not stand for "hatred of open and proud homosexuals" in any event. We are called to hate the sin and love the sinner. Gay activists like Andrew Sullivan, whose entire human personality and identity are subsumed in their sex drive, cannot and will not recognize the difference between a person and an activity.

Furthermore, Mr. Sullivan's rantings appear to confirm what I have suspected all along about him, and Christopher Hitchins as well, i.e., their beef with Saddam Hussein and Islamist terrorists has nothing to do with the horrible violent and criminal acts that they do, but rather Islam's traditional moral beliefs on sexuality. And even as a matter of pure beliefs, there is no comparison between traditional Islamist believers and traditional Christian believers of the present day, since the former use the government and Shariah law to impose their views, whereas most traditional Christian believers today would live with a government truly neutral on the issue of the morality of homosexual activity, i.e., a government that neither made such activity criminal nor promoted it through the public schools or civil same sex marriage.

The efforts of Mr. Sullivan and other liberals to demonize traditional religious believers is hysterical, unAmerican and unnecessary. Active homosexuals are in no way persecuted in present day America and indeed are the beneficiaries of much preferential treatment in the media and elsewhere. Our nation was founded on tolerance and religious freedom. The Godless and promiscuous liberals and gay activists are free and tolerated in this society. Why can't traditional religious believers be equally tolerated in Andrew Sullivan's America? Live and let live is the American thing to do. Too bad that religion-hating liberals have no intention of following that pacific American custom.

Charles S.

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