Today's Cultural Warfare Update
Jun. 23rd, 2007 12:10 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
solarbirdToday's CWU is unusual in that there's an extended section of links mostly provided by ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
dogemperor, documenting the continued promotion of the "homosexuals ran the Nazi party and slaughtered the Jews" Holocaust revisionism. I heard this from a variety of sources in the late 1990s, but did not know it was still around; it is, but at the state level, rather than national. Still, it is apparently a part of the subtext for the "gay == tyranny" argument being made at a slightly more refined level nationally.
And now, today's news.
I include this one mostly because various people continue to insist to me that the theoconservative movement is not critical to the Republican party; it's Raw Story covering a meeting between President Bush and James Dobson (and others);
Courtesydogemperor, here are a whole set of links about something I thought had died out in the late 1990s but in fact continues to this day: the fundamentalist holocaust revisionism that blames gay people for both the Nazi party and the Holocaust, asserting that gay people - gay men in particular - were behind the Holocaust, rather than victims of it. Most of the links in this section are provided courtesy dogemperor:
Focus on the Family promotes the 32nd "Exodus International Freedom Conference," an "ex-gay" quackery group;
Focus on the Family pleased that the GOP stopped an embryonic stem-cell research bill by voting against it as a bloc; Focus calls it the "Clone-and-Kill Bill";
Focus on the Family ACTION ITEM to thank Congressional representatives who voted to maintain the "international gag rule" or "Mexico City policy" of barring foreign aid to groups that provide or discuss abortion services;
FotF: New Jersey lesbian couple denied rental of a beachfront pavilion (normally rented to the public) because they are lesbians; it turns out that "Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association" is owned by a Methodist organisation, so they're claiming religious exemption;
FotF promotes the fundamentalist "biotech conference" hosted at the Bethany Bible Church by pastors called, "The Biotech Century: Facing Our Future";
Concerned Women for America's Matt Barber condemns the Massachusetts vote not to overturn marriage rights for GBLT couples, calling it Frankenstein's monster "terrorising the countryside," alleges bribery, condemns "political treachery" leading to the "no" vote, says that legal gay marriage means legal incest, and calls for a Federal anti-gay amendment to make the Massachusetts legislative vote moot;
CWA kinda-sorta ACTION ITEM to continue requiring abstinence-based AIDS prevention programmes overseas;
CWA commends Bush veto of Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007;
CWA's condemnation of GBLT-friendly churches, "The Gay Gospel: How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread the Bible," has a working audio link now. CWA's Matt Barber discusses the book with Joe Dallas, the author. There's not all that much red meat in this one, tho' it's neat watching Barber try to get Dallas to get into it; Dallas doesn't bite, though; but wtf is "body ministry," anyway? Barber recommends it as a way of dealing with "sexual sin," and all I can think of is, "...IF you know what I mean";
Traditional Values Coalition laments poll showing that 60% of Americans think "homosexual relations should be legal," noting that's up from 47% in 1977. I'd like to click through to that poll, but I can't. TVC then wonders if American values would change if "they understood that 'sexual orientation' can include bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, and sexual attraction to the stumps of amputees." Mmmmm, breathless new lows. ETA: Found the poll.
----- 1 -----
Bush met with Dobson and conservative Christian leaders to rally support for Iran policy
Max Blumenthal
Raw Story
Published: Monday May 14, 2007
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Bush_meets_with_Dobson_Christian_right_0514.html
President George W. Bush met privately with Focus on the Family Founder and Chairman James Dobson and approximately a dozen Christian right leaders last week to rally support for his policies on Iraq, Iran and the so-called "war on terror."
“I was invited to go to Washington DC to meet with President Bush in the White House along with 12 or 13 other leaders of the pro-family movement," Dobson disclosed on his radio program Monday. “And the topic of the discussion that day was Iraq, Iran and international terrorism. And we were together for 90 minutes and it was very enlightening and in some ways disturbing too."
[...]
Dobson described Bush as “upbeat and determined and convinced, adding, “I wish the American people could have sat in on that meeting we had.”
Dobson went on to enumerate a series of meetings convened by Christian right leaders in Washington to discuss the supposedly existential threat to the United States from a nuclear Iran.
[...]
“The world looked at Hitler and just didn't believe him and tried to appease him the way we're hearing in Washington today,” Dobson remarked. “You know, the President seems to me does understand this, as I told you from that meeting I had with him the other day, but even there it feels like somebody ought to be standing up and saying, ‘We are being threatened and we are going to meet this with force -- whatever's necessary.’”
[More at URL]
----- 2 -----
Homosexuality and the Nazi Party
by Scott Lively
Scott Lively is co-author of The Pink Swastika: Homosexuals and the Nazi Party (Keizer, Oregon: Founders Publishing Company, 1995). The Pink Swastika is not available through Leadership U., but is available by calling Jeremiah Films at 1-800-828-2290.
http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/lively.html
The pink triangle, symbol of the "gay rights" movement, is familiar to many Americans. As the badge used by the Nazis to designate homosexuals in the concentration camps, the pink triangle perfectly expresses the message of "gay rights." That message is that homosexuals are currently and historically victims of irrational prejudice and that those who oppose homosexuality are hateful bigots. This all-important victim status engenders sympathy for the homosexual "cause" among well-meaning heterosexuals. Thus, millions of otherwise rational Americans support a movement whose sole unifying characteristic is a sexual lifestyle they personally find repugnant.
[...]
While some homosexuals were interned in Nazi work camps, the role of homosexuals in Nazi history cannot be accurately represented solely by a pink triangle. Our review of more than 200 history texts written since the 1930s suggests that a pink swastika is equally representative, if not more so. For, ironically, while many homosexuals were persecuted by the Nazi party, there is no doubt that the Nazi party itself had many homosexuals within its own ranks, even among its highest leadership.
[More at URL]
----- 3 -----
Reviewers Praise The Pink Swastika
Defend the Family, a service of Abiding Truth Ministries
(http://www.abidingtruth.com/)
Online as of 22 June 2007
http://www.abidingtruth.com/pfrc/books/pinkswastika/html/the_pinkswastika_4th_edition_-_final.htm
“The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party is a thoroughly researched, eminently readable, demolition of the “gay” myth, symbolized by the pink triangle, that the Nazis were anti-homosexual. The deep roots of homosexuality in the Nazi party are brilliantly exposed . . .”
- Dr. Howard Hurwitz, Family Defense Council
“As a Jewish scholar who lost hundreds of her family in the Holocaust, I welcome The Pink Swastika as courageous and timely . . . Lively and Abrams reveal the reigning “gay history” as revisionist and expose the supermale German homosexuals for what they were - Nazi brutes, not Nazi victims.”
- Dr. Judith Reisman, Institute for Media Education
[More at URL]
----- 4 -----
The Annotated Pink Swastika
Citizens Allied for Civic Action (CAFCA)
Online as of 22 June 2007
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Barracks/8706/
(also at http://www.qrd.org/qrd/religion/anti/annotated.pink.swastika )
Click Below to Expose the Lies
1. What is The Annotated Pink Swastika?
2. What is The Pink Swastika?
3. Begin Reading (Table of Contents)
4. Download a Searchable ASCII Version
[More at URL]
----- 5 -----
Homosexuality and the Nazi Party - Part 1
January 09, 2005
by Scott Lively
Life and Liberty Ministries
http://www.lifeandlibertyministries.com/archives/000278.php
The pink triangle, symbol of the "gay rights" movement, is familiar to many Americans. As the badge used by the Nazis to designate homosexuals in the concentration camps, the pink triangle perfectly expresses the message of "gay rights." That message is that homosexuals are currently and historically victims of irrational prejudice and that those who oppose homosexuality are hateful bigots. This all-important victim status engenders sympathy for the homosexual "cause" among well-meaning heterosexuals. Thus, millions of otherwise rational Americans support a movement whose sole unifying characteristic is a sexual lifestyle they personally find repugnant.
[...]
The Homosexual Roots of the Nazi Party
The "gay rights" movement often portrays itself as an American phenomenon which arose from the civil rights movement of the 1950s. It is not uncommon to hear homosexualists (those both "gay" and "straight" who promote the legitimization of homosexuality) characterize "gay rights" as the natural third wave of civil rights activism (following blacks and women). In reality, however, Germany was the birthplace of "gay rights," and its legacy in that nation is truly alarming.
[More at URL]
----- 6 -----
Sodomy Is A Crime
Life and Liberty Ministries
February 04, 2005
http://www.lifeandlibertyministries.com/archives/000094.php
After confronting people out on the street with what the Word of God says and then reading what is happening in the news, I have to ask the question, "Why are the pro-family groups having such a hard time discussing the crime of sodomy?" What has become evident to me is the fact that most of these groups do not publicly address sodomy as a crime and then demand that our civil authorities arrest, prosecute, and punish the sodomites.
Christians need to understand that this is the same mistake that the pro-life groups made years ago by not addressing the criminal activity of murder -- by abortion. In the 60's and 70's when criminals began to proclaim a right to commit murder (abortion right), pro-life groups capitulated to the false notion that a "right" to murder innocent people by abortion, in fact, existed, which led them to erroneously conclude that a particular method of murdering people could then be regulated legislatively (abortion regulations). Many Christians who bought into that tragic mind-set now find themselves entangled in endless debate over medical procedures, licensing regulations, etc., while criminals are allowed to murder children with impunity.
We see exactly the same thing happening with the false claim of gay rights. Many pro-family groups are capitulating to the false notion that "gay rights," in fact, exist and therefore, are not maintaining their focus on addressing the truth that sodomy is a crime.
Consequently, these groups are now finding themselves in protracted, defensive strategies while criminals are allowed to sodomize each other and members of society with impunity.
[...]
Not only should Christian men fight for the safety of their families by demanding that these civil officials repent, or resign from office immediately, Christians should be demanding the strongest laws and punishments against sodomy be put into effect so as to cleanse the pestilence from our society. (Lev. 20:13)
Sodomy is an "abomination" (Lev.18:22), and those who engage in sodomy are so vile that their very presence defiles the land (Lev. 18:22,25). Through the administration of Justice, God gives the civil officials the authority to prevent society, the land, from being defiled. The civil officials swing the sword to "...execute wrath upon him that doeth evil" (Rom. 13:4) -- and in this case sodomites -- "...shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Lev. 20:13).
[More at URL]
----- 7 -----
Making Myths
Anti-gay religious crusaders claim homosexuals helped mastermind the Holocaust. They're not telling the truth
By Bob Moser
Southern Poverty Law Centre
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=328
For decades now, "Holocaust revisionists" in the U.S. and Europe have published pseudo-scholarly papers and books claiming to prove that the Nazis never carried out a systematic extermination of Jews. In 1995, a book called The Pink Swastika made similar claims about the Nazis' treatment of homosexuals during the Holocaust.
Written by fundamentalist activists Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams, The Pink Swastika says that rather than being victimized by the Nazis, gay men in Hitler's inner circle actually helped mastermind the Holocaust.
[...]
"When lawlessness is abroad in the land, the same thing will happen here that happened in Nazi Germany," Pat Robertson once warned viewers of his 700 Club. "Many of those people involved with Adolf Hitler were satanists. Many of them were homosexuals. The two seem to go together."
The Pink Swastika has been promoted by anti-gay groups like the Family Research Council. The FRC's Dr. Howard Hurwitz called the book "a thoroughly researched, eminently readable, demolition of the 'gay' myth, symbolized by the pink triangle, that the Nazis were anti-homosexual."
[ETA 2k7/7/6: Editor's Note: As per my summary above, I suspected this was an error; Dr. Hurwitz is former head of the Family Defense Council. I today received word from the Southern Poverty Law Centre that they in fact did err, and are issuing a correction.];
[...]
There is no question that the Nazis saw homosexuality as one aspect of the "degeneracy" they were determined to extinguish. When it came to power in 1933, the Nazi Party moved quickly to strengthen Germany's existing penalties against homosexuality. On Oct. 11, 1936, Hitler's security chief, Heinrich Himmler, went further, announcing that homosexuality was to be "eliminated" in Germany, along with miscegenation between the races.
In 1942, the death penalty was instituted for homosexuality. Offenders in the German military were routinely shot. "That wasn't a punishment," Himmler explained, "but simply the extinguishing of abnormal life. It had to be got rid of, just as we pull out weeds, throw them on a heap, and burn them."
[More at URL]
----- 8 -----
Oh my. THIS is quite interesting
dogemperor responding to this post on ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
dark_christian
10 June 2007
http://community.livejournal.com/dark_christian/851802.html?thread=10879834#t10879834
Warning: links on first paragraph go to Army of God website. Do not visit if easily squicked, if your employer logs visits to websites, or if you have other reasons to be concerned about visiting a website belonging to a domestic terror organisation that has advocated the murder of clinic workers and terrorist attacks against women's clinics, up to and including publications of manuals on how to conduct domestic terrorism.
[More at URL]
----- 9 -----
101 Frequently Asked Questions About Homosexuality
Mike Haley
Paperback
Focus on the Family
http://resources.family.org/product/id/102566.do?code=OL07XFARC3
The rhetoric surrounding the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle is everywhere. Parents have children suddenly "coming out." Organizations are accused of "intolerance." And it seems that everyone agrees it's okay to be gay. Learn how to address the issues surrounding same-sex attraction and its implications for society in this thought-provoking book by a man who's been there.
[Ed. Note: a link to the questions, but not the answers, in table-of-contents form is here:
http://resources.family.org/images/en_us/local/products/detail/P00059Btoc.pdf
]
----- 10 -----
California Exodus Freedom Conference Draws a Crowd – And Critics
'A unique and relevant voice' in the dialogue about homosexuality.
by Wendy Cloyd, assistant editor
Focus on the Family
6-22-2007
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000004897.cfm
Exodus International will host its 32nd annual Freedom Conference June 26 - July 1 – celebrating the truth that change is possible for people who are unhappy with their same-sex attraction. People from all over the world – including Japan, Ireland, Britain and Australia – will gather in Irvine, Calif., for the life-changing event.
Randy Thomas, executive vice president of Exodus International, said his organization has "a unique and relevant voice" in the discussion about homosexuality.
[More at URL]
----- 11 -----
Oregon House Stops Clone-and-Kill Bill
Focus on the Family
6-22-2007
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLBriefs/A000004893.cfm
An effort to use public funding to clone and to destroy human embryos for research came up one vote short in the Oregon House on Thursday. The bill needed 31 votes to pass.
The entire Republican caucus in the House voted against the bill.
[More at URL]
----- 12 -----
Representatives Who Support Life Deserve Thanks
More than 200 votes were not enough to keep tax dollars from foreign abortion providers.
by Jennifer Mesko, associate editor
Focus on the Family
6-22-2007
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000004896.cfm
An amendment to keep tax dollars from supporting abortion overseas failed in the U.S. House on Thursday, but more than 200 representatives who took a stand for life deserve to be thanked.
"Pro-family lawmakers are navigating their way through a minefield of anti-family legislation and rhetoric this Congress," said Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst for Focus on the Family Action. "Tell them you support their efforts to stand strong amid such strong opposition."
By a vote of 218-205, the House rejected a bipartisan amendment by Reps. Chris Smith, R-N.J., and Bart Stupak, D-Mich., that would have preserved the pro-life Mexico City policy — named after the location where President Reagan announced it in 1984. It was rescinded by President Clinton in 1993. President Bush reinstated the policy on his first day in office. The policy denies foreign aid funds to organizations that promote or provide abortions.
Bush has pledged to veto any bill that undermines his pro-life policies. Supporters of the Mexico City policy believe they can sustain a veto, according to Smith's office.
"Someday, future generations of Americans will look back on us and wonder how — and why — such a rich and seemingly enlightened society, so blessed and endowed with the capacity to protect and enhance vulnerable human life, could have instead, so aggressively promoted death to children by abortion," Smith said during Thursday's debate.
"They will note that we prided ourselves on our human-rights rhetoric and record, while precluding all protection to the most persecuted minority in the world today — unborn babies," he added.
Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, said: "Regrettably, the pro-life amendment fell a little short. The president will veto this bill, if necessary. And the veto will be sustained.
"In the end, they have to decide if they want to get their bills signed or vetoed. It is important for the members who voted for the Smith-Stupak amendment to hear appreciation from constituents who do not want their dollars used for abortion."
The Smith-Stupak amendment was part of the foreign aid spending bill, which the House passed, 241-178. The Senate Appropriations Committee could mark up its version of the bill next week.
TAKE ACTION
Check the list to see if your representative voted "Yes" on the pro-life Stupak-Smith amendment.
Then say "thank you" to those who took a stand for life. If you are a CitizenLink Daily Update subscriber, click on the blue "Take Action" button in the e-mail to be automatically logged in to our Action Center. Otherwise, click on this link.
----- 13 -----
Lesbians Barred From Beachfront Union Sue
Focus on the Famiy
6-22-2007
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLBriefs/A000004891.cfm
Two Ocean Grove, N.J., women who were denied the use of a beachfront pavilion for a civil-union ceremony have filed a complaint against the group that owns it, The Associated Press reported.
[...]
Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster submitted an application to use a pavilion owned by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association. The application was denied.
[...]
Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said New Jersey statutes protect religious organizations. Under the law, the Methodist association cannot be compelled to rent to anyone it concludes does not "promote the religious principles for which it is established or maintained."
"Although this should be a slam-dunk for the church," Hausknecht said, "the political pressure that will be brought to bear by homosexual activists – and the state bureaucrats who support them – will be intense."
[More at URL]
----- 14 -----
Christians Can Find Answers at Biotech Conference
Focus on the Family
6-22-2007
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLBriefs/A000004890.cfm
The Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) and Focus on the Family are co-sponsoring a biotech conference in November that will help Christians answer tough questions about stem cells, living wills and end-of-life issues.
"The Biotech Century: Facing Our Future" comes to Phoenix on November 3. Speakers include Wesley J. Smith of The Center for Bioethics and Culture and Carrie Gordon Earll, senior analyst for bioethics at Focus on the Family Action. Joni Eareckson Tada will be featured in a special video message.
[More at URL]
----- 15 -----
"Gay Marriage" - It's Alive!
As for the "gay marriage" monster: In the words of Dr. Frankenstein - "It's alive!" And it's pounding on the castle door.
Concerned Women for America
6/21/2007
By J. Matt Barber
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/13225/CFI/family/index.htm
With its 2003 Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court circumvented the constitutional process and arbitrarily imposed "same-sex marriage" on the people of Massachusetts in what amounted to a brazen and contemptuous act of judicial activism. Now members of the liberal Massachusetts state legislature have surrendered to the demands of the militant homosexual lobby and have betrayed both the citizens of Massachusetts and the democratic process by preventing voters from weighing in on this crucial issue.
Prior to Goodridge, the concept of a man "marrying" a man or a woman "marrying" a woman was widely and properly considered preposterous. However, with their decision in Goodridge, four of the court's seven social mad scientists have zapped artificial life into a cultural "gay-marriage" Frankenstein monster. And that radical and bizarre new concept has been terrorizing the countryside every since.
[...]
However, in order for the amendment to make it onto the 2008 ballot, at least 50 legislators had to vote in support of the measure in two consecutive sessions. But despite broad support and almost two hundred thousand petition signatures, lawmakers thumbed their collective nose at their constituents and voted by just over a three-to-one margin (151-45) during the second session to deny the citizens of Massachusetts a voice.
Several representatives inexplicably pulled a 180 degree turn. The measure passed with 62 votes during the first term, but about a dozen lawmakers crumbled under the pressure during the second term and changed their position. There were even allegations of a quid pro quo for some of those who changed their votes. It remains to be seen what - if any - payoff they will receive for their political treachery.
[...]
There were four Massachusetts state legislators in particular who were most disloyal to their constituents - two Democrats and two Republicans - elected in 2006 after expressly running on a pro-family platform and a promise to vote in favor of the amendment. Republicans Richard Ross and Paul Loscocco and Democrats Angelo Puppolo and Geraldo Alicea simply lied to their constituents by promising to vote for the amendment and then shamelessly breaking that promise.
[...]
And what about incest? A brother and a sister? A father and a daughter? If it's discrimination to prevent same-sex couples from "marrying," then why not couples who just happen to be blood relatives? Once the castle gate of traditional marriage bursts open and that "gay marriage" creature escapes - there's nothing to contain him … anything goes.
Thousands of years of history, every major world religion and good ole' fashioned common sense dictate that legitimate marriage exists only between a male and female and that it's a sacred and fundamental cornerstone to any healthy society. Although this ballot initiative wasn't perfect, in that it would have grandfathered existing "same-sex marriages" in the state, the citizens of Massachusetts should have at least been allowed to speak. But instead, Massachusetts lawmakers have arrogantly and disdainfully told their own constituents to shut up and go home.
[more at URL]
----- 16 -----
Learn Your ABCs to Prevent STDs
Sarah Rode
Concerned Women for America
June 21, 2007
http://www.cwalac.org/article_522.shtml
Editor’s Note: Representative Joe Pitts’ (R-Pennsylvania) amendment to restore the provision in the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) authorization that requires 33% of HIV/AIDS prevention funding to be spent on abstinence and fidelity promotion program failed today (6/21/07) in the House 201-226. Pray that the Senate will take action to restore this provision. [Ed. Note: That's the CWA editor, not me, at the start of this paragraph. In case that isn't clear.]
Everyone loses when Congress allows social agendas to trump saving lives. That is exactly what may happen if Congress rejects the allocation of foreign aid to programs which have reduced sexually transmitted diseases in many countries, most famously Uganda and Kenya. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-California) and others claim that changing sexual behavior is not possible and that U.S. foreign aid should only fund condom distribution and treatment for HIV/AIDS, not programs that have proven to reduce diseases in the first place. The ABC approach (A-Abstinence, B-Be faithful, C-use a Condom) has proven effective at reducing sexually transmitted diseases and sexual partners.
South Africa has the largest number of AIDS infections in the world with 5.3 million reported in 2003.1 A 2005 study by Human Sciences Research Council showed that 10.8% of the population was infected with HIV/AIDS.2 The country’s strategy for reducing the spread of AIDS relies on generously distributing condoms. Craig Timberg recently wrote in The Washington Post, “Researchers increasingly attribute the resilience of HIV in Botswana — and in southern Africa generally — to the high incidence of multiple sexual relationships.” U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has spread the message of condom usage to 4,122,500 South Africans and their government provides unlimited condoms free of charge.3 Timberg explains, “Soaring rates of condom use have not brought down high HIV rates. Instead, they rose together, until both were among the highest in Africa.”4
South Africa has largely ignored the ABC approach to HIV prevention and that nation is suffering as a result. Yet some in Congress hope to exclusively fund this failing approach in other countries by eliminating the amount of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) that is designated for promoting abstinence and fidelity.
The effectiveness of the ABC approach is shown in numerous countries, particularly Uganda. In 1991, 15% of Uganda’s population was infected with HIV. Within 10 years, the prevalence of the virus decreased with only 5% of the population being infected.5 The most dramatic decrease of HIV infection is in Kenya. According to Dr. Patrick Orege, director of Kenya’s National AIDS Control Council, new infections have already dropped 3% in just the few years since the ABC policy has been implemented.6
The reduction in HIV/AIDS infections is a result of behavioral change, not condom usage. Abstinence and fidelity to a partner who is not infected is 100% effective. Condoms are 80-90% effective against HIV infection when used correctly and consistently and less effective against other forms of sexually transmitted diseases. Exclusively promoting a practice that protects only 80-90% of the time at best, when a 100% effective practice is available, is bad policy and dangerous for those not aware of the failures of even consistent condom use.
Concerned Women for America President Wendy Wright said, “If a person knows they may die as a result of a chosen activity, they can usually muster the self-control to abstain from that activity. It’s incredibly demeaning to assume that people, particularly people in other countries, do not have the ability to make good choices and restrain from life-threatening behaviors. The ABC programs prove that people are not slaves to their sexual lusts and can make healthy choices. U.S. foreign aid should not be based on a view that people in other countries cannot control their behavior even if their lives depend on it.”
Congress should stop pushing an agenda of sexual liberation and start allowing proven methods of HIV reduction to prevail.
----- 17 -----
Ethics Wins Over Politics
Concerned Women for America
6/21/2007
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/13223/MEDIA/life/index.htm
Washington, D.C. — Today President Bush fulfilled his promise to veto the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. Concerned Women for America (CWA) is pleased to work with President Bush to ensure that our tax dollars are not spent on destroying human embryos for experiments.
By appropriating millions of federal dollars to destructive embryonic stem cell research, Congress would force taxpayers to fund experiments that kill embryos and delay real hope and real cures for suffering people.
[More at URL]
----- 18 -----
The "Gay" Gospel
Concerned Women for America
6/21/2007
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/13203/CFI/family/index.htm
Homosexual activists are making inroads in the Evangelical community by promoting a false gospel; one that views homosexual temptations as normal. Joe Dallas, Pastoral Counselor and Director of Genesis Biblical Counseling has just published a book on this trend titled The Gay Gospel. Matt Barber, CWA’s Policy Director for Cultural Issues, talks with Joe about this trend and how Christians can reach out to their friends and family who may have fallen for this deceptive theological error. Sound file
[Joe Dallas: "I realise that the title The Gay Gospel would raise eyebrows; believe me, I do not believe that "gay" and "gospel" are compatible. But today, as you know, there is a growing movement to legitimise homosexuality not only in the eyes of the culture, but the eyes of the church as well. And that is what I mean by the "gay gospel." There is in essence a new gospel being preached which teaches that homosexuality not only is legitimate, but is even God-ordained, and that the church which believes homosexuality is wrong needs to change its position. And this is a teaching that is growing in prominence - more and more Christians are being faced with it - so i wrote this book to equip the average believer to be able to answer the claims of those who say, "I am gay, and I am Christian, and that's fine with God."
Matt Barber: "Joe, I'm a little confused here, anyone who has read the Bible knows that the Bible unequivocally condemns homosexual behaviours as sinful behaviours, as immoral; how is that that homosexuals can claim that the Bible does anything other than prohibit or condemn homosexual behaviours?"
Dallas: "Well, Matt, there's a great old song by Simon and Garfunkel, two of my favourite musitions from the 60s, called "The Boxer." And the lyrics go something like this, "All lies and jest/still a man hears what he wants to hear/and disregards the rest." I think that many people are in the same position I was in about 30 years ago. Back in the late 1970s, I was a Christian and I was sexually attracted to men. And in that dilemma, my conflict between my faith and my sexual feelings, I wanted to believe that somehow God would condone my homosexuality. And so with that desire in mind, I heard somebody tell me about the pro-Gay interpretation of the BIble, and while that wasn't a very convincing interpretation - as you said, anybody who reads the bible plainly will see that it condemns homosexuality - but if you read the Bible through the eyes of someone wanting the Bible to legitimise the behaviour, you can find something entirely different. So I in essence heard what I wanted to hear. And isn't that exactly what Paul told Timothy would happen, in the last days? That in the last days, sound doctrine would become unendurable, completely unacceptable, and that people would gather to themselves teachers telling them what they wanted to hear. So I believe that the pro-gay theology, or what I call in this book the gay gospel, is a symptom of the problem of people wanting to believe something, and then imposing that desire on the Bible, rather than reading the Bible for what it says, they interpret it for what they want it to mean."
Dallas: "I think that if we look at the proper reading of scripture, we would call it exo-Jesus, where we call the meaning of the document from the document itself, as opposed to iso-Jesus, where we have a preconceived meaning that we impose on the document. And, of course, as you know, if you choke the BIble hard enough, you can make it say whatever you want it to, and in my opinion, this is what pro-gay theologians have done. However, what makes the pro-gay theology distinct from other false teachings that are prominent today is that it has a very powerful lobby behind it, it is gaining in popularity, it has media support, Hollywood support, academic support, psychological support, and so there is more and more pressure on the church to either adopt a pro-gay interpretation of the Bible, or be silenced. So we really are more and more facing those two options, or the third option, which is the right one, of course, and that is to lovingly but clearly speak the truth without regard to the culture's response.
Barber: "And Joe, I had the pleasure of reading your book, The Gay Gospel, and it accomplishes that goal, you very lovingly but clearly address these issues, and address homosexual behaviour, and lay out the Biblical foundation for why those behaviours are sin. How would you recommend to - first of all, I want to recommend to anyone listening right now that they get a copy of this book and read it, I think, I found it enlightening, and our listeners would get a lot out of this book. How would you recommend that Christians address that neighbour, address that cousin, that friend, that relative, who is engaging in homosexual behaviour, or has same-sex attractions, in a loving way, and who is coming forward and saying, 'hey my pastor told me, my church told me that homosexuality is a gift from God.' How do we address people like that?"
Dallas: "Well, let's first keep our priourities straight. If we have a friend or a neighbour who's homosexual, and they are not a Christian, their homosexuality is not the main issue. They need to hear the gospel. That really is the issue. If they are a professing Christian though, then I think the best approach is to simply say, 'okay, you are a believer who believes in the authority of the Bible, as am I, let's look again at what Scripture says. I'd like to hear your take on Moses, in Leviticus, when he talks about male homosexuality. Paul, in Romans chapter 1, or 1st Corinthians 6, and I'd like to know how you read those scriptures. And then of course, if I may, I'd like to respond to that.' Because there are many people who have had a genuine born-again experience, have had a sincere faith in Jesus Christ, but have adopted the pro-gay theology as what I believe is a significant compromise. And so when we're talking to friends and loved ones who've made that compromise, we're talking to people who we're hoping God will correct. That's what we're hoping for.
Kleider: "Joe, how much of a foothold has the gay gospel received in Christian circles? I would expect that certain more liberal-leaning churches would be the first victims - and academia, Christian colleges, universities, theological seminaries, you know, maybe affiliated with secular institutions, would be the first to fall."
Dallas: "Unquestionably, that is how it's played out, but it hasn't been limited to that. [Kleider: Ooh.] Certainly more mainline denominations that have a liberal streak in them - and I don't mean this to slam anybody, but realistically - the Episcopal church, certainly, with the fairly recent ordination of an openly gay bishop; the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church USA; the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America; all of these denominations have a very strong pro-gay group within them that are working hard to change the denomination's official position on homosexuality. Academia, certainly, has largely caved in to the pro-gay interpretation of the Bible. But now there are some disturbing new trends even among people who call themselves evangelicals. In my book, I mention, for example, that the very well known gospel Cynthia Clawson, who's a Dove and Grammy award winner and sings with the Gaither Homecoming Concert, she has sung several times at gay churches, and on her website she's very clearly said, 'Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, it cannot matter much to him,' and in essence she has defended her practice of participating in gay worship services. Chuck Smith, Jr., who is the son of pastor Chuck Smith, one of my favourite BIble teachers, he has gone on record as saying he's no longer certain that the Bible condemns homosexuality; Brian McLarin, a very well known author and speaker, went so far as to say not only is he uncertain whether the BIble condemns this behaviour, but we should all, in essence, take a five-year moratorium on preaching against homosexuality, and revisit our view by reviewing psychology, and philosophy, and sociology, as well as theology. So those who are taking this position are no longer just limited to what we could call theological liberals; there are even those who claim to be more conservative who are now beginning to espouse, if not a blatantly pro-gay viewpoint, at least a viewpoint that says, 'perhaps the Bible does allow for homosexuality, I'm no longer certain.'"
Barber: "Well, Joe, that is just mind-boggling, and using that logic, it seems to me there were a lot of things that Christ did not directly address. I don't believe he addressed incest. Using that logic, who are we to say that incest is not permissible from a Biblical viewpoint?"
Dallas: "You know, Matt, it's an odd argument, this one that says Jesus said nothing about homosexuality so it must not matter. First, it presumes that we know everything Jesus said in his earthly ministry, and we don't; the gospels don't even pretend to be some sort of camcorder that followed him around picking up everything he said, but it also suggests that the gospels are somehow more authoritative than the rest of scripture, and that flies in the face of what Paul told Timothy, that all scripture is inspired by God. We have an entire canon, both old and new testament, all equally authoritative, besides of all of which I should point out Matt, Jesus did, when he was asked about sexual ethics, and about divorce and remarriage, get right back to the account of Genesis when he said, 'let's cut to the chase; don't you know from the beginning, God made them male and female, for this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, the two shall become one flesh.' So while he did not mention all of the many sexual sins that existed at his time, he certainly did state the standard for human sexuality, that it's meant to be independent and monogamous and heterosexual. And anything falling short of that is the definition of sin."
Kleider: "Well, Joe, there's also the factor of negative press. Jesus might not have said anything specifically about homosexuality, but had he overturned old testament doctrine on that matter, I can see the Pharisees screaming about it left and right, it would have made it, Josephus would mention, that here is this man, proclaiming to be Christ the Messiah, who is overturning what Moses has told us!"
Dallas: "And incidentally, what did he say about the law, other than that hey, I came not to destroy it, just the opposite, I came to fulfill it. And as you're mentioning and it's very true, it was common knowledge, at the time he was teaching at any rate, what the sexual ethics were as spelled out in the Law of Moses, and it certainly wouldn't have been necessary for him to unnecessarily expound on what people already knew. Most of what he taught, in fact, was by way of shedding greater light on what people already knew, rather than reiterating what was already obvious. So I'm not at all surprised that he didn't take time to each against homosexuality, that certainly would have been in most cases preaching to the choir."
Barber: "Well, Joe, what do you say to people who say, 'okay, I get it, it's wrong, it's sinful, I have these desires, what do I do with these desires, because wasn't I born this way, is there any way that, isn't the idea of being an ex-homosexual a myth?' What do you say to those people?"
Dallas: "Well now, that's a different group, by the way. As soon as someone is saying, 'okay, I realise it's sinful,' now the conversation takes a different turn. When you're talking to non-believers, it's not a good idea to even argue homosexuality, the thing to do is to promote the gospel. When you're talking to believers who claim to be gay and Christian, you do need to argue the ethics based on scriptures. But when someone says, 'okay, I realise it's wrong,' now they are in essence admitting they are repentant, and that's a good time to say, 'okay, you've got very deeply ingrained desires. Just because they are deeply ingrained doesn't mean they are inborn; we all have deeply ingrained desires that we have to resist, sometimes on a daily basis, and perhaps your lot in life, your cross to bear, will be resisting homosexual temptations when they arise. And so the Bible does not require you to be relieved of temptations; the BIble calls you to, by the grace of God, allow your behaviour to be conformed to his standards, and allow him to transform your heart towards that behaviour as well."
Kleider: "Joe, given that, how should we react to Christians who have fallen back into that kind of sin? That's heartbreaking."
Dallas: "Oh it is heartbreaking, and of course I think we should react dependent on their attitude towards it. If a Christian falls back into sin and is repentant we should receive them back with joy. If a Christian falls back into that sin and claims it is no longer a sin, which many have done with the sin of homosexuality, then at some point we have to say, 'look. If you are going to continue to practice sexual sin, and you are a believer, and you are legitimising that sin; I love you, I will pray for you, I respect your free will, but I cannot be in fellowship with you. You are in essence living in rebellion against your father, and I am going to pray for your restoration, but neither can I agree with you nor can I really be in communion with you, as long as you are deliberately practicing that sin as a believer.' Now, I would not say that to a non-believer, and Paul made it clear in 1st Corinthians 5 that there's no point in disassociating from non-Christians who commit sexual sin because then he said very practically, 'you'd have to leave the planet!' But regarding a brother or sister who practices immortality, you really cannot be in fellowship with those who are non-repentant."
Barber: "And Joe, for those who are believers, who have the question, who ask you, 'how do I get out of this lifestyle, I don't want to engage in these behaviours, how do I do that?', what do you tell them?"
Dallas: "Well, a great place to start is with your pastor and with body ministry. There are people within the church who struggle in different ways with homosexuality. Some are not sexually active, their struggle is only with their desires and their fantasies. Others are, at times, sexually active, and they need to repent, they need to become accountable to someone, they need to get some godly council on how to deal with the struggle between the flesh and the spirit; they would probably be well-served by joining a kind of a support group or a discipleship group for believers who struggle with different sexual sins, where they can encourage each other and be educated and exchange ideas and have a strong sense of support. And, in essence, I think it's important not to many any sin so specialised [sic] that the believer who struggles with it feels like he's a special case. We are all in this life wrestling with the struggle between the flesh and the spirit; we're all dealing with the pull of the world; to some extent, we all have some conflict that we have to keep wrestling with; and I think that what God requires of all of us is to live a disciple's life, where we recognise that our primary goal in life is not our own satisfaction, but rather what we can do to please our master, and, of course, the great irony is, in doing that, we find the greatest satisfaction. When I repented back in 1984, Matt, I was doing it because I believed that was what God wanted me to do, and that's true. But I, in essence, did it for God, because I believed that as a Christian I must be obedient to him. Only now, 23 years later, do I realise I was doing myself the biggest favour I could have done myself. So it's a great paradox, but it's just like Jesus said, if you really want to find your life, lose it."
Kleider: [Promotes Genesis Biblical Counseling]
Dallas: [promotes joedallas.com] [Promotes The Gay Gospel]
]
----- 19 -----
Public Evenly Divided Over Morality Of Homosexual Behaviors
Traditional Values Coalition
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3083
May 31, 2007 – Recent Gallup Poll survey results released in May indicate that public support for “gay rights” to be “at the high-water mark of attitudes recorded over the past three decades. There is still considerable public opposition to complete equality for gays, particularly with respect to marriage.”
One question asked individuals if they thought homosexual relationships should be legal. In 1977, 43% answered yes. Today, 60% answered yes.
On the morality of homosexuality, 47% said such relationships are moral, compared to 40% in 2001.
On the question of nature or nurture on homosexuality, 42% think homosexuality is inborn; 35% say it is due to parenting upbringing and environment.
Other questions reveal a similar weakening of opposition to homosexuality.
As TVC Chairman Rev. Louis P. Sheldon stated in his book, The Agenda: “By sheer persistence, the gay-friendly media have been forcing Americans to accept homosexuality as a normal and natural choice, whether they believe it or not. … The great aim of the homosexual lobby and its supporters … is to eradicate the moral framework of American society and to elevate and legislate promiscuous couplings of every imaginable type.”
[...]
“I imagine they would not have been so supportive of homosexuality if they had understood the whole range of ‘sexual orientations’ being normalized in our culture. They also might have been less supportive of homosexuality if they understood that the ultimate goal of homosexual activism is to destroy the concept of marriage altogether.
[More at URL]
dogemperor, documenting the continued promotion of the "homosexuals ran the Nazi party and slaughtered the Jews" Holocaust revisionism. I heard this from a variety of sources in the late 1990s, but did not know it was still around; it is, but at the state level, rather than national. Still, it is apparently a part of the subtext for the "gay == tyranny" argument being made at a slightly more refined level nationally.And now, today's news.
I include this one mostly because various people continue to insist to me that the theoconservative movement is not critical to the Republican party; it's Raw Story covering a meeting between President Bush and James Dobson (and others);
Courtesy
dogemperor, here are a whole set of links about something I thought had died out in the late 1990s but in fact continues to this day: the fundamentalist holocaust revisionism that blames gay people for both the Nazi party and the Holocaust, asserting that gay people - gay men in particular - were behind the Holocaust, rather than victims of it. Most of the links in this section are provided courtesy dogemperor:Leadership U., a spinoff of Campus Crusade for Christ, promotes the book The Pink Swastika: Homosexuals and the Nazi Party. The book's author, Scott Lively, is or was head of the California branch of the American Family Association, though that branch may now be inactive and the AFA may now be trying to hide this. Google cache of the web page here;Back to our normal programme, Focus on the Family's ad today is for their book, 101 Frequently Asked Questions about Homosexuality, which tells fundamentalists how to reject the idea that being gay is acceptable;
Abiding Truth Ministries hosts the 4th Edition of The Pink Swastika, quoting a variety of reviews praising the book for showing how the Holocaust really happened - it wasn't those good Germans, it was the fags, whose perversion leads to fascism. Abiding Truth Ministries also sells another book, The Poisoned Stream, which also blames gay people for fascism (quoting their summary, it "traces the 'poisoned stream' of homosexual influences throughout history, particularly in Germany between 1890 and 1945");
The Annotated Pink Swastika, a refutation of the book, made in response to a Wisconsin group redistributing the original;
Scott Lively's article above is reprinted by "Life and Liberty Ministries";
Life and Liberty Ministries calls for the recriminalisation of GBLT people, along with arrests, prosecution, and punishment of all GBLT people;
The Southern Poverty Law Centre quotes Family Research Council wonk Dr. Howard Hurwitz praising The Pink Swastika, [UPDATE: I think the SPLC has confused the Family Research Council and the Family Defense Council; I can't find any active links between Dr. Hurwiz and the FRC, but plenty with the FDC] and Pat Robertson saying that lots of Nazis were gay, and also, by the way, Satanists, and that the two go together; Pat Robertson is well known and needs no introduction;the Family Research Council is, of course, a spinoff of James Dobson's Focus on the Family. James Dobson is an extremely powerful fundamentalist theoconservative, and is a leading voice in the weekly GOP national strategy calls[ETA: True but possibly irrelevant. The Family Defense Council is a separate organisation. Dr. Howard Hurwitz is now on the board of the National Non-Sectarian Council of Pro-Family Activists, which includes Concerned Women for America's Robert Knight, and Scott Lively, author of The Pink Swastika]. [ETA 2k7/7/6: I have received word from the Southern Poverty Law Centre confirming that they in fact did err, and are issuing a correction.];
Focus on the Family promotes the 32nd "Exodus International Freedom Conference," an "ex-gay" quackery group;
Focus on the Family pleased that the GOP stopped an embryonic stem-cell research bill by voting against it as a bloc; Focus calls it the "Clone-and-Kill Bill";
Focus on the Family ACTION ITEM to thank Congressional representatives who voted to maintain the "international gag rule" or "Mexico City policy" of barring foreign aid to groups that provide or discuss abortion services;
FotF: New Jersey lesbian couple denied rental of a beachfront pavilion (normally rented to the public) because they are lesbians; it turns out that "Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association" is owned by a Methodist organisation, so they're claiming religious exemption;
FotF promotes the fundamentalist "biotech conference" hosted at the Bethany Bible Church by pastors called, "The Biotech Century: Facing Our Future";
Concerned Women for America's Matt Barber condemns the Massachusetts vote not to overturn marriage rights for GBLT couples, calling it Frankenstein's monster "terrorising the countryside," alleges bribery, condemns "political treachery" leading to the "no" vote, says that legal gay marriage means legal incest, and calls for a Federal anti-gay amendment to make the Massachusetts legislative vote moot;
CWA kinda-sorta ACTION ITEM to continue requiring abstinence-based AIDS prevention programmes overseas;
CWA commends Bush veto of Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007;
CWA's condemnation of GBLT-friendly churches, "The Gay Gospel: How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread the Bible," has a working audio link now. CWA's Matt Barber discusses the book with Joe Dallas, the author. There's not all that much red meat in this one, tho' it's neat watching Barber try to get Dallas to get into it; Dallas doesn't bite, though; but wtf is "body ministry," anyway? Barber recommends it as a way of dealing with "sexual sin," and all I can think of is, "...IF you know what I mean";
Traditional Values Coalition laments poll showing that 60% of Americans think "homosexual relations should be legal," noting that's up from 47% in 1977. I'd like to click through to that poll, but I can't. TVC then wonders if American values would change if "they understood that 'sexual orientation' can include bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, and sexual attraction to the stumps of amputees." Mmmmm, breathless new lows. ETA: Found the poll.
----- 1 -----
Bush met with Dobson and conservative Christian leaders to rally support for Iran policy
Max Blumenthal
Raw Story
Published: Monday May 14, 2007
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Bush_meets_with_Dobson_Christian_right_0514.html
President George W. Bush met privately with Focus on the Family Founder and Chairman James Dobson and approximately a dozen Christian right leaders last week to rally support for his policies on Iraq, Iran and the so-called "war on terror."
“I was invited to go to Washington DC to meet with President Bush in the White House along with 12 or 13 other leaders of the pro-family movement," Dobson disclosed on his radio program Monday. “And the topic of the discussion that day was Iraq, Iran and international terrorism. And we were together for 90 minutes and it was very enlightening and in some ways disturbing too."
[...]
Dobson described Bush as “upbeat and determined and convinced, adding, “I wish the American people could have sat in on that meeting we had.”
Dobson went on to enumerate a series of meetings convened by Christian right leaders in Washington to discuss the supposedly existential threat to the United States from a nuclear Iran.
[...]
“The world looked at Hitler and just didn't believe him and tried to appease him the way we're hearing in Washington today,” Dobson remarked. “You know, the President seems to me does understand this, as I told you from that meeting I had with him the other day, but even there it feels like somebody ought to be standing up and saying, ‘We are being threatened and we are going to meet this with force -- whatever's necessary.’”
[More at URL]
----- 2 -----
Homosexuality and the Nazi Party
by Scott Lively
Scott Lively is co-author of The Pink Swastika: Homosexuals and the Nazi Party (Keizer, Oregon: Founders Publishing Company, 1995). The Pink Swastika is not available through Leadership U., but is available by calling Jeremiah Films at 1-800-828-2290.
http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/lively.html
The pink triangle, symbol of the "gay rights" movement, is familiar to many Americans. As the badge used by the Nazis to designate homosexuals in the concentration camps, the pink triangle perfectly expresses the message of "gay rights." That message is that homosexuals are currently and historically victims of irrational prejudice and that those who oppose homosexuality are hateful bigots. This all-important victim status engenders sympathy for the homosexual "cause" among well-meaning heterosexuals. Thus, millions of otherwise rational Americans support a movement whose sole unifying characteristic is a sexual lifestyle they personally find repugnant.
[...]
While some homosexuals were interned in Nazi work camps, the role of homosexuals in Nazi history cannot be accurately represented solely by a pink triangle. Our review of more than 200 history texts written since the 1930s suggests that a pink swastika is equally representative, if not more so. For, ironically, while many homosexuals were persecuted by the Nazi party, there is no doubt that the Nazi party itself had many homosexuals within its own ranks, even among its highest leadership.
[More at URL]
----- 3 -----
Reviewers Praise The Pink Swastika
Defend the Family, a service of Abiding Truth Ministries
(http://www.abidingtruth.com/)
Online as of 22 June 2007
http://www.abidingtruth.com/pfrc/books/pinkswastika/html/the_pinkswastika_4th_edition_-_final.htm
“The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party is a thoroughly researched, eminently readable, demolition of the “gay” myth, symbolized by the pink triangle, that the Nazis were anti-homosexual. The deep roots of homosexuality in the Nazi party are brilliantly exposed . . .”
- Dr. Howard Hurwitz, Family Defense Council
“As a Jewish scholar who lost hundreds of her family in the Holocaust, I welcome The Pink Swastika as courageous and timely . . . Lively and Abrams reveal the reigning “gay history” as revisionist and expose the supermale German homosexuals for what they were - Nazi brutes, not Nazi victims.”
- Dr. Judith Reisman, Institute for Media Education
[More at URL]
----- 4 -----
The Annotated Pink Swastika
Citizens Allied for Civic Action (CAFCA)
Online as of 22 June 2007
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Barracks/8706/
(also at http://www.qrd.org/qrd/religion/anti/annotated.pink.swastika )
Click Below to Expose the Lies
1. What is The Annotated Pink Swastika?
2. What is The Pink Swastika?
3. Begin Reading (Table of Contents)
4. Download a Searchable ASCII Version
[More at URL]
----- 5 -----
Homosexuality and the Nazi Party - Part 1
January 09, 2005
by Scott Lively
Life and Liberty Ministries
http://www.lifeandlibertyministries.com/archives/000278.php
The pink triangle, symbol of the "gay rights" movement, is familiar to many Americans. As the badge used by the Nazis to designate homosexuals in the concentration camps, the pink triangle perfectly expresses the message of "gay rights." That message is that homosexuals are currently and historically victims of irrational prejudice and that those who oppose homosexuality are hateful bigots. This all-important victim status engenders sympathy for the homosexual "cause" among well-meaning heterosexuals. Thus, millions of otherwise rational Americans support a movement whose sole unifying characteristic is a sexual lifestyle they personally find repugnant.
[...]
The Homosexual Roots of the Nazi Party
The "gay rights" movement often portrays itself as an American phenomenon which arose from the civil rights movement of the 1950s. It is not uncommon to hear homosexualists (those both "gay" and "straight" who promote the legitimization of homosexuality) characterize "gay rights" as the natural third wave of civil rights activism (following blacks and women). In reality, however, Germany was the birthplace of "gay rights," and its legacy in that nation is truly alarming.
[More at URL]
----- 6 -----
Sodomy Is A Crime
Life and Liberty Ministries
February 04, 2005
http://www.lifeandlibertyministries.com/archives/000094.php
After confronting people out on the street with what the Word of God says and then reading what is happening in the news, I have to ask the question, "Why are the pro-family groups having such a hard time discussing the crime of sodomy?" What has become evident to me is the fact that most of these groups do not publicly address sodomy as a crime and then demand that our civil authorities arrest, prosecute, and punish the sodomites.
Christians need to understand that this is the same mistake that the pro-life groups made years ago by not addressing the criminal activity of murder -- by abortion. In the 60's and 70's when criminals began to proclaim a right to commit murder (abortion right), pro-life groups capitulated to the false notion that a "right" to murder innocent people by abortion, in fact, existed, which led them to erroneously conclude that a particular method of murdering people could then be regulated legislatively (abortion regulations). Many Christians who bought into that tragic mind-set now find themselves entangled in endless debate over medical procedures, licensing regulations, etc., while criminals are allowed to murder children with impunity.
We see exactly the same thing happening with the false claim of gay rights. Many pro-family groups are capitulating to the false notion that "gay rights," in fact, exist and therefore, are not maintaining their focus on addressing the truth that sodomy is a crime.
Consequently, these groups are now finding themselves in protracted, defensive strategies while criminals are allowed to sodomize each other and members of society with impunity.
[...]
Not only should Christian men fight for the safety of their families by demanding that these civil officials repent, or resign from office immediately, Christians should be demanding the strongest laws and punishments against sodomy be put into effect so as to cleanse the pestilence from our society. (Lev. 20:13)
Sodomy is an "abomination" (Lev.18:22), and those who engage in sodomy are so vile that their very presence defiles the land (Lev. 18:22,25). Through the administration of Justice, God gives the civil officials the authority to prevent society, the land, from being defiled. The civil officials swing the sword to "...execute wrath upon him that doeth evil" (Rom. 13:4) -- and in this case sodomites -- "...shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Lev. 20:13).
[More at URL]
----- 7 -----
Making Myths
Anti-gay religious crusaders claim homosexuals helped mastermind the Holocaust. They're not telling the truth
By Bob Moser
Southern Poverty Law Centre
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=328
For decades now, "Holocaust revisionists" in the U.S. and Europe have published pseudo-scholarly papers and books claiming to prove that the Nazis never carried out a systematic extermination of Jews. In 1995, a book called The Pink Swastika made similar claims about the Nazis' treatment of homosexuals during the Holocaust.
Written by fundamentalist activists Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams, The Pink Swastika says that rather than being victimized by the Nazis, gay men in Hitler's inner circle actually helped mastermind the Holocaust.
[...]
"When lawlessness is abroad in the land, the same thing will happen here that happened in Nazi Germany," Pat Robertson once warned viewers of his 700 Club. "Many of those people involved with Adolf Hitler were satanists. Many of them were homosexuals. The two seem to go together."
The Pink Swastika has been promoted by anti-gay groups like the Family Research Council. The FRC's Dr. Howard Hurwitz called the book "a thoroughly researched, eminently readable, demolition of the 'gay' myth, symbolized by the pink triangle, that the Nazis were anti-homosexual."
[ETA 2k7/7/6: Editor's Note: As per my summary above, I suspected this was an error; Dr. Hurwitz is former head of the Family Defense Council. I today received word from the Southern Poverty Law Centre that they in fact did err, and are issuing a correction.];
[...]
There is no question that the Nazis saw homosexuality as one aspect of the "degeneracy" they were determined to extinguish. When it came to power in 1933, the Nazi Party moved quickly to strengthen Germany's existing penalties against homosexuality. On Oct. 11, 1936, Hitler's security chief, Heinrich Himmler, went further, announcing that homosexuality was to be "eliminated" in Germany, along with miscegenation between the races.
In 1942, the death penalty was instituted for homosexuality. Offenders in the German military were routinely shot. "That wasn't a punishment," Himmler explained, "but simply the extinguishing of abnormal life. It had to be got rid of, just as we pull out weeds, throw them on a heap, and burn them."
[More at URL]
----- 8 -----
Oh my. THIS is quite interesting
dogemperor responding to this post on dark_christian10 June 2007
http://community.livejournal.com/dark_christian/851802.html?thread=10879834#t10879834
Warning: links on first paragraph go to Army of God website. Do not visit if easily squicked, if your employer logs visits to websites, or if you have other reasons to be concerned about visiting a website belonging to a domestic terror organisation that has advocated the murder of clinic workers and terrorist attacks against women's clinics, up to and including publications of manuals on how to conduct domestic terrorism.
[More at URL]
----- 9 -----
101 Frequently Asked Questions About Homosexuality
Mike Haley
Paperback
Focus on the Family
http://resources.family.org/product/id/102566.do?code=OL07XFARC3
The rhetoric surrounding the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle is everywhere. Parents have children suddenly "coming out." Organizations are accused of "intolerance." And it seems that everyone agrees it's okay to be gay. Learn how to address the issues surrounding same-sex attraction and its implications for society in this thought-provoking book by a man who's been there.
[Ed. Note: a link to the questions, but not the answers, in table-of-contents form is here:
http://resources.family.org/images/en_us/local/products/detail/P00059Btoc.pdf
]
----- 10 -----
California Exodus Freedom Conference Draws a Crowd – And Critics
'A unique and relevant voice' in the dialogue about homosexuality.
by Wendy Cloyd, assistant editor
Focus on the Family
6-22-2007
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000004897.cfm
Exodus International will host its 32nd annual Freedom Conference June 26 - July 1 – celebrating the truth that change is possible for people who are unhappy with their same-sex attraction. People from all over the world – including Japan, Ireland, Britain and Australia – will gather in Irvine, Calif., for the life-changing event.
Randy Thomas, executive vice president of Exodus International, said his organization has "a unique and relevant voice" in the discussion about homosexuality.
[More at URL]
----- 11 -----
Oregon House Stops Clone-and-Kill Bill
Focus on the Family
6-22-2007
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLBriefs/A000004893.cfm
An effort to use public funding to clone and to destroy human embryos for research came up one vote short in the Oregon House on Thursday. The bill needed 31 votes to pass.
The entire Republican caucus in the House voted against the bill.
[More at URL]
----- 12 -----
Representatives Who Support Life Deserve Thanks
More than 200 votes were not enough to keep tax dollars from foreign abortion providers.
by Jennifer Mesko, associate editor
Focus on the Family
6-22-2007
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000004896.cfm
An amendment to keep tax dollars from supporting abortion overseas failed in the U.S. House on Thursday, but more than 200 representatives who took a stand for life deserve to be thanked.
"Pro-family lawmakers are navigating their way through a minefield of anti-family legislation and rhetoric this Congress," said Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst for Focus on the Family Action. "Tell them you support their efforts to stand strong amid such strong opposition."
By a vote of 218-205, the House rejected a bipartisan amendment by Reps. Chris Smith, R-N.J., and Bart Stupak, D-Mich., that would have preserved the pro-life Mexico City policy — named after the location where President Reagan announced it in 1984. It was rescinded by President Clinton in 1993. President Bush reinstated the policy on his first day in office. The policy denies foreign aid funds to organizations that promote or provide abortions.
Bush has pledged to veto any bill that undermines his pro-life policies. Supporters of the Mexico City policy believe they can sustain a veto, according to Smith's office.
"Someday, future generations of Americans will look back on us and wonder how — and why — such a rich and seemingly enlightened society, so blessed and endowed with the capacity to protect and enhance vulnerable human life, could have instead, so aggressively promoted death to children by abortion," Smith said during Thursday's debate.
"They will note that we prided ourselves on our human-rights rhetoric and record, while precluding all protection to the most persecuted minority in the world today — unborn babies," he added.
Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, said: "Regrettably, the pro-life amendment fell a little short. The president will veto this bill, if necessary. And the veto will be sustained.
"In the end, they have to decide if they want to get their bills signed or vetoed. It is important for the members who voted for the Smith-Stupak amendment to hear appreciation from constituents who do not want their dollars used for abortion."
The Smith-Stupak amendment was part of the foreign aid spending bill, which the House passed, 241-178. The Senate Appropriations Committee could mark up its version of the bill next week.
TAKE ACTION
Check the list to see if your representative voted "Yes" on the pro-life Stupak-Smith amendment.
Then say "thank you" to those who took a stand for life. If you are a CitizenLink Daily Update subscriber, click on the blue "Take Action" button in the e-mail to be automatically logged in to our Action Center. Otherwise, click on this link.
----- 13 -----
Lesbians Barred From Beachfront Union Sue
Focus on the Famiy
6-22-2007
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLBriefs/A000004891.cfm
Two Ocean Grove, N.J., women who were denied the use of a beachfront pavilion for a civil-union ceremony have filed a complaint against the group that owns it, The Associated Press reported.
[...]
Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster submitted an application to use a pavilion owned by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association. The application was denied.
[...]
Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said New Jersey statutes protect religious organizations. Under the law, the Methodist association cannot be compelled to rent to anyone it concludes does not "promote the religious principles for which it is established or maintained."
"Although this should be a slam-dunk for the church," Hausknecht said, "the political pressure that will be brought to bear by homosexual activists – and the state bureaucrats who support them – will be intense."
[More at URL]
----- 14 -----
Christians Can Find Answers at Biotech Conference
Focus on the Family
6-22-2007
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLBriefs/A000004890.cfm
The Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) and Focus on the Family are co-sponsoring a biotech conference in November that will help Christians answer tough questions about stem cells, living wills and end-of-life issues.
"The Biotech Century: Facing Our Future" comes to Phoenix on November 3. Speakers include Wesley J. Smith of The Center for Bioethics and Culture and Carrie Gordon Earll, senior analyst for bioethics at Focus on the Family Action. Joni Eareckson Tada will be featured in a special video message.
[More at URL]
----- 15 -----
"Gay Marriage" - It's Alive!
As for the "gay marriage" monster: In the words of Dr. Frankenstein - "It's alive!" And it's pounding on the castle door.
Concerned Women for America
6/21/2007
By J. Matt Barber
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/13225/CFI/family/index.htm
With its 2003 Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court circumvented the constitutional process and arbitrarily imposed "same-sex marriage" on the people of Massachusetts in what amounted to a brazen and contemptuous act of judicial activism. Now members of the liberal Massachusetts state legislature have surrendered to the demands of the militant homosexual lobby and have betrayed both the citizens of Massachusetts and the democratic process by preventing voters from weighing in on this crucial issue.
Prior to Goodridge, the concept of a man "marrying" a man or a woman "marrying" a woman was widely and properly considered preposterous. However, with their decision in Goodridge, four of the court's seven social mad scientists have zapped artificial life into a cultural "gay-marriage" Frankenstein monster. And that radical and bizarre new concept has been terrorizing the countryside every since.
[...]
However, in order for the amendment to make it onto the 2008 ballot, at least 50 legislators had to vote in support of the measure in two consecutive sessions. But despite broad support and almost two hundred thousand petition signatures, lawmakers thumbed their collective nose at their constituents and voted by just over a three-to-one margin (151-45) during the second session to deny the citizens of Massachusetts a voice.
Several representatives inexplicably pulled a 180 degree turn. The measure passed with 62 votes during the first term, but about a dozen lawmakers crumbled under the pressure during the second term and changed their position. There were even allegations of a quid pro quo for some of those who changed their votes. It remains to be seen what - if any - payoff they will receive for their political treachery.
[...]
There were four Massachusetts state legislators in particular who were most disloyal to their constituents - two Democrats and two Republicans - elected in 2006 after expressly running on a pro-family platform and a promise to vote in favor of the amendment. Republicans Richard Ross and Paul Loscocco and Democrats Angelo Puppolo and Geraldo Alicea simply lied to their constituents by promising to vote for the amendment and then shamelessly breaking that promise.
[...]
And what about incest? A brother and a sister? A father and a daughter? If it's discrimination to prevent same-sex couples from "marrying," then why not couples who just happen to be blood relatives? Once the castle gate of traditional marriage bursts open and that "gay marriage" creature escapes - there's nothing to contain him … anything goes.
Thousands of years of history, every major world religion and good ole' fashioned common sense dictate that legitimate marriage exists only between a male and female and that it's a sacred and fundamental cornerstone to any healthy society. Although this ballot initiative wasn't perfect, in that it would have grandfathered existing "same-sex marriages" in the state, the citizens of Massachusetts should have at least been allowed to speak. But instead, Massachusetts lawmakers have arrogantly and disdainfully told their own constituents to shut up and go home.
[more at URL]
----- 16 -----
Learn Your ABCs to Prevent STDs
Sarah Rode
Concerned Women for America
June 21, 2007
http://www.cwalac.org/article_522.shtml
Editor’s Note: Representative Joe Pitts’ (R-Pennsylvania) amendment to restore the provision in the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) authorization that requires 33% of HIV/AIDS prevention funding to be spent on abstinence and fidelity promotion program failed today (6/21/07) in the House 201-226. Pray that the Senate will take action to restore this provision. [Ed. Note: That's the CWA editor, not me, at the start of this paragraph. In case that isn't clear.]
Everyone loses when Congress allows social agendas to trump saving lives. That is exactly what may happen if Congress rejects the allocation of foreign aid to programs which have reduced sexually transmitted diseases in many countries, most famously Uganda and Kenya. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-California) and others claim that changing sexual behavior is not possible and that U.S. foreign aid should only fund condom distribution and treatment for HIV/AIDS, not programs that have proven to reduce diseases in the first place. The ABC approach (A-Abstinence, B-Be faithful, C-use a Condom) has proven effective at reducing sexually transmitted diseases and sexual partners.
South Africa has the largest number of AIDS infections in the world with 5.3 million reported in 2003.1 A 2005 study by Human Sciences Research Council showed that 10.8% of the population was infected with HIV/AIDS.2 The country’s strategy for reducing the spread of AIDS relies on generously distributing condoms. Craig Timberg recently wrote in The Washington Post, “Researchers increasingly attribute the resilience of HIV in Botswana — and in southern Africa generally — to the high incidence of multiple sexual relationships.” U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has spread the message of condom usage to 4,122,500 South Africans and their government provides unlimited condoms free of charge.3 Timberg explains, “Soaring rates of condom use have not brought down high HIV rates. Instead, they rose together, until both were among the highest in Africa.”4
South Africa has largely ignored the ABC approach to HIV prevention and that nation is suffering as a result. Yet some in Congress hope to exclusively fund this failing approach in other countries by eliminating the amount of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) that is designated for promoting abstinence and fidelity.
The effectiveness of the ABC approach is shown in numerous countries, particularly Uganda. In 1991, 15% of Uganda’s population was infected with HIV. Within 10 years, the prevalence of the virus decreased with only 5% of the population being infected.5 The most dramatic decrease of HIV infection is in Kenya. According to Dr. Patrick Orege, director of Kenya’s National AIDS Control Council, new infections have already dropped 3% in just the few years since the ABC policy has been implemented.6
The reduction in HIV/AIDS infections is a result of behavioral change, not condom usage. Abstinence and fidelity to a partner who is not infected is 100% effective. Condoms are 80-90% effective against HIV infection when used correctly and consistently and less effective against other forms of sexually transmitted diseases. Exclusively promoting a practice that protects only 80-90% of the time at best, when a 100% effective practice is available, is bad policy and dangerous for those not aware of the failures of even consistent condom use.
Concerned Women for America President Wendy Wright said, “If a person knows they may die as a result of a chosen activity, they can usually muster the self-control to abstain from that activity. It’s incredibly demeaning to assume that people, particularly people in other countries, do not have the ability to make good choices and restrain from life-threatening behaviors. The ABC programs prove that people are not slaves to their sexual lusts and can make healthy choices. U.S. foreign aid should not be based on a view that people in other countries cannot control their behavior even if their lives depend on it.”
Congress should stop pushing an agenda of sexual liberation and start allowing proven methods of HIV reduction to prevail.
----- 17 -----
Ethics Wins Over Politics
Concerned Women for America
6/21/2007
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/13223/MEDIA/life/index.htm
Washington, D.C. — Today President Bush fulfilled his promise to veto the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. Concerned Women for America (CWA) is pleased to work with President Bush to ensure that our tax dollars are not spent on destroying human embryos for experiments.
By appropriating millions of federal dollars to destructive embryonic stem cell research, Congress would force taxpayers to fund experiments that kill embryos and delay real hope and real cures for suffering people.
[More at URL]
----- 18 -----
The "Gay" Gospel
Concerned Women for America
6/21/2007
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/13203/CFI/family/index.htm
Homosexual activists are making inroads in the Evangelical community by promoting a false gospel; one that views homosexual temptations as normal. Joe Dallas, Pastoral Counselor and Director of Genesis Biblical Counseling has just published a book on this trend titled The Gay Gospel. Matt Barber, CWA’s Policy Director for Cultural Issues, talks with Joe about this trend and how Christians can reach out to their friends and family who may have fallen for this deceptive theological error. Sound file
[Joe Dallas: "I realise that the title The Gay Gospel would raise eyebrows; believe me, I do not believe that "gay" and "gospel" are compatible. But today, as you know, there is a growing movement to legitimise homosexuality not only in the eyes of the culture, but the eyes of the church as well. And that is what I mean by the "gay gospel." There is in essence a new gospel being preached which teaches that homosexuality not only is legitimate, but is even God-ordained, and that the church which believes homosexuality is wrong needs to change its position. And this is a teaching that is growing in prominence - more and more Christians are being faced with it - so i wrote this book to equip the average believer to be able to answer the claims of those who say, "I am gay, and I am Christian, and that's fine with God."
Matt Barber: "Joe, I'm a little confused here, anyone who has read the Bible knows that the Bible unequivocally condemns homosexual behaviours as sinful behaviours, as immoral; how is that that homosexuals can claim that the Bible does anything other than prohibit or condemn homosexual behaviours?"
Dallas: "Well, Matt, there's a great old song by Simon and Garfunkel, two of my favourite musitions from the 60s, called "The Boxer." And the lyrics go something like this, "All lies and jest/still a man hears what he wants to hear/and disregards the rest." I think that many people are in the same position I was in about 30 years ago. Back in the late 1970s, I was a Christian and I was sexually attracted to men. And in that dilemma, my conflict between my faith and my sexual feelings, I wanted to believe that somehow God would condone my homosexuality. And so with that desire in mind, I heard somebody tell me about the pro-Gay interpretation of the BIble, and while that wasn't a very convincing interpretation - as you said, anybody who reads the bible plainly will see that it condemns homosexuality - but if you read the Bible through the eyes of someone wanting the Bible to legitimise the behaviour, you can find something entirely different. So I in essence heard what I wanted to hear. And isn't that exactly what Paul told Timothy would happen, in the last days? That in the last days, sound doctrine would become unendurable, completely unacceptable, and that people would gather to themselves teachers telling them what they wanted to hear. So I believe that the pro-gay theology, or what I call in this book the gay gospel, is a symptom of the problem of people wanting to believe something, and then imposing that desire on the Bible, rather than reading the Bible for what it says, they interpret it for what they want it to mean."
Dallas: "I think that if we look at the proper reading of scripture, we would call it exo-Jesus, where we call the meaning of the document from the document itself, as opposed to iso-Jesus, where we have a preconceived meaning that we impose on the document. And, of course, as you know, if you choke the BIble hard enough, you can make it say whatever you want it to, and in my opinion, this is what pro-gay theologians have done. However, what makes the pro-gay theology distinct from other false teachings that are prominent today is that it has a very powerful lobby behind it, it is gaining in popularity, it has media support, Hollywood support, academic support, psychological support, and so there is more and more pressure on the church to either adopt a pro-gay interpretation of the Bible, or be silenced. So we really are more and more facing those two options, or the third option, which is the right one, of course, and that is to lovingly but clearly speak the truth without regard to the culture's response.
Barber: "And Joe, I had the pleasure of reading your book, The Gay Gospel, and it accomplishes that goal, you very lovingly but clearly address these issues, and address homosexual behaviour, and lay out the Biblical foundation for why those behaviours are sin. How would you recommend to - first of all, I want to recommend to anyone listening right now that they get a copy of this book and read it, I think, I found it enlightening, and our listeners would get a lot out of this book. How would you recommend that Christians address that neighbour, address that cousin, that friend, that relative, who is engaging in homosexual behaviour, or has same-sex attractions, in a loving way, and who is coming forward and saying, 'hey my pastor told me, my church told me that homosexuality is a gift from God.' How do we address people like that?"
Dallas: "Well, let's first keep our priourities straight. If we have a friend or a neighbour who's homosexual, and they are not a Christian, their homosexuality is not the main issue. They need to hear the gospel. That really is the issue. If they are a professing Christian though, then I think the best approach is to simply say, 'okay, you are a believer who believes in the authority of the Bible, as am I, let's look again at what Scripture says. I'd like to hear your take on Moses, in Leviticus, when he talks about male homosexuality. Paul, in Romans chapter 1, or 1st Corinthians 6, and I'd like to know how you read those scriptures. And then of course, if I may, I'd like to respond to that.' Because there are many people who have had a genuine born-again experience, have had a sincere faith in Jesus Christ, but have adopted the pro-gay theology as what I believe is a significant compromise. And so when we're talking to friends and loved ones who've made that compromise, we're talking to people who we're hoping God will correct. That's what we're hoping for.
Kleider: "Joe, how much of a foothold has the gay gospel received in Christian circles? I would expect that certain more liberal-leaning churches would be the first victims - and academia, Christian colleges, universities, theological seminaries, you know, maybe affiliated with secular institutions, would be the first to fall."
Dallas: "Unquestionably, that is how it's played out, but it hasn't been limited to that. [Kleider: Ooh.] Certainly more mainline denominations that have a liberal streak in them - and I don't mean this to slam anybody, but realistically - the Episcopal church, certainly, with the fairly recent ordination of an openly gay bishop; the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church USA; the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America; all of these denominations have a very strong pro-gay group within them that are working hard to change the denomination's official position on homosexuality. Academia, certainly, has largely caved in to the pro-gay interpretation of the Bible. But now there are some disturbing new trends even among people who call themselves evangelicals. In my book, I mention, for example, that the very well known gospel Cynthia Clawson, who's a Dove and Grammy award winner and sings with the Gaither Homecoming Concert, she has sung several times at gay churches, and on her website she's very clearly said, 'Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, it cannot matter much to him,' and in essence she has defended her practice of participating in gay worship services. Chuck Smith, Jr., who is the son of pastor Chuck Smith, one of my favourite BIble teachers, he has gone on record as saying he's no longer certain that the Bible condemns homosexuality; Brian McLarin, a very well known author and speaker, went so far as to say not only is he uncertain whether the BIble condemns this behaviour, but we should all, in essence, take a five-year moratorium on preaching against homosexuality, and revisit our view by reviewing psychology, and philosophy, and sociology, as well as theology. So those who are taking this position are no longer just limited to what we could call theological liberals; there are even those who claim to be more conservative who are now beginning to espouse, if not a blatantly pro-gay viewpoint, at least a viewpoint that says, 'perhaps the Bible does allow for homosexuality, I'm no longer certain.'"
Barber: "Well, Joe, that is just mind-boggling, and using that logic, it seems to me there were a lot of things that Christ did not directly address. I don't believe he addressed incest. Using that logic, who are we to say that incest is not permissible from a Biblical viewpoint?"
Dallas: "You know, Matt, it's an odd argument, this one that says Jesus said nothing about homosexuality so it must not matter. First, it presumes that we know everything Jesus said in his earthly ministry, and we don't; the gospels don't even pretend to be some sort of camcorder that followed him around picking up everything he said, but it also suggests that the gospels are somehow more authoritative than the rest of scripture, and that flies in the face of what Paul told Timothy, that all scripture is inspired by God. We have an entire canon, both old and new testament, all equally authoritative, besides of all of which I should point out Matt, Jesus did, when he was asked about sexual ethics, and about divorce and remarriage, get right back to the account of Genesis when he said, 'let's cut to the chase; don't you know from the beginning, God made them male and female, for this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, the two shall become one flesh.' So while he did not mention all of the many sexual sins that existed at his time, he certainly did state the standard for human sexuality, that it's meant to be independent and monogamous and heterosexual. And anything falling short of that is the definition of sin."
Kleider: "Well, Joe, there's also the factor of negative press. Jesus might not have said anything specifically about homosexuality, but had he overturned old testament doctrine on that matter, I can see the Pharisees screaming about it left and right, it would have made it, Josephus would mention, that here is this man, proclaiming to be Christ the Messiah, who is overturning what Moses has told us!"
Dallas: "And incidentally, what did he say about the law, other than that hey, I came not to destroy it, just the opposite, I came to fulfill it. And as you're mentioning and it's very true, it was common knowledge, at the time he was teaching at any rate, what the sexual ethics were as spelled out in the Law of Moses, and it certainly wouldn't have been necessary for him to unnecessarily expound on what people already knew. Most of what he taught, in fact, was by way of shedding greater light on what people already knew, rather than reiterating what was already obvious. So I'm not at all surprised that he didn't take time to each against homosexuality, that certainly would have been in most cases preaching to the choir."
Barber: "Well, Joe, what do you say to people who say, 'okay, I get it, it's wrong, it's sinful, I have these desires, what do I do with these desires, because wasn't I born this way, is there any way that, isn't the idea of being an ex-homosexual a myth?' What do you say to those people?"
Dallas: "Well now, that's a different group, by the way. As soon as someone is saying, 'okay, I realise it's sinful,' now the conversation takes a different turn. When you're talking to non-believers, it's not a good idea to even argue homosexuality, the thing to do is to promote the gospel. When you're talking to believers who claim to be gay and Christian, you do need to argue the ethics based on scriptures. But when someone says, 'okay, I realise it's wrong,' now they are in essence admitting they are repentant, and that's a good time to say, 'okay, you've got very deeply ingrained desires. Just because they are deeply ingrained doesn't mean they are inborn; we all have deeply ingrained desires that we have to resist, sometimes on a daily basis, and perhaps your lot in life, your cross to bear, will be resisting homosexual temptations when they arise. And so the Bible does not require you to be relieved of temptations; the BIble calls you to, by the grace of God, allow your behaviour to be conformed to his standards, and allow him to transform your heart towards that behaviour as well."
Kleider: "Joe, given that, how should we react to Christians who have fallen back into that kind of sin? That's heartbreaking."
Dallas: "Oh it is heartbreaking, and of course I think we should react dependent on their attitude towards it. If a Christian falls back into sin and is repentant we should receive them back with joy. If a Christian falls back into that sin and claims it is no longer a sin, which many have done with the sin of homosexuality, then at some point we have to say, 'look. If you are going to continue to practice sexual sin, and you are a believer, and you are legitimising that sin; I love you, I will pray for you, I respect your free will, but I cannot be in fellowship with you. You are in essence living in rebellion against your father, and I am going to pray for your restoration, but neither can I agree with you nor can I really be in communion with you, as long as you are deliberately practicing that sin as a believer.' Now, I would not say that to a non-believer, and Paul made it clear in 1st Corinthians 5 that there's no point in disassociating from non-Christians who commit sexual sin because then he said very practically, 'you'd have to leave the planet!' But regarding a brother or sister who practices immortality, you really cannot be in fellowship with those who are non-repentant."
Barber: "And Joe, for those who are believers, who have the question, who ask you, 'how do I get out of this lifestyle, I don't want to engage in these behaviours, how do I do that?', what do you tell them?"
Dallas: "Well, a great place to start is with your pastor and with body ministry. There are people within the church who struggle in different ways with homosexuality. Some are not sexually active, their struggle is only with their desires and their fantasies. Others are, at times, sexually active, and they need to repent, they need to become accountable to someone, they need to get some godly council on how to deal with the struggle between the flesh and the spirit; they would probably be well-served by joining a kind of a support group or a discipleship group for believers who struggle with different sexual sins, where they can encourage each other and be educated and exchange ideas and have a strong sense of support. And, in essence, I think it's important not to many any sin so specialised [sic] that the believer who struggles with it feels like he's a special case. We are all in this life wrestling with the struggle between the flesh and the spirit; we're all dealing with the pull of the world; to some extent, we all have some conflict that we have to keep wrestling with; and I think that what God requires of all of us is to live a disciple's life, where we recognise that our primary goal in life is not our own satisfaction, but rather what we can do to please our master, and, of course, the great irony is, in doing that, we find the greatest satisfaction. When I repented back in 1984, Matt, I was doing it because I believed that was what God wanted me to do, and that's true. But I, in essence, did it for God, because I believed that as a Christian I must be obedient to him. Only now, 23 years later, do I realise I was doing myself the biggest favour I could have done myself. So it's a great paradox, but it's just like Jesus said, if you really want to find your life, lose it."
Kleider: [Promotes Genesis Biblical Counseling]
Dallas: [promotes joedallas.com] [Promotes The Gay Gospel]
]
----- 19 -----
Public Evenly Divided Over Morality Of Homosexual Behaviors
Traditional Values Coalition
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3083
May 31, 2007 – Recent Gallup Poll survey results released in May indicate that public support for “gay rights” to be “at the high-water mark of attitudes recorded over the past three decades. There is still considerable public opposition to complete equality for gays, particularly with respect to marriage.”
One question asked individuals if they thought homosexual relationships should be legal. In 1977, 43% answered yes. Today, 60% answered yes.
On the morality of homosexuality, 47% said such relationships are moral, compared to 40% in 2001.
On the question of nature or nurture on homosexuality, 42% think homosexuality is inborn; 35% say it is due to parenting upbringing and environment.
Other questions reveal a similar weakening of opposition to homosexuality.
As TVC Chairman Rev. Louis P. Sheldon stated in his book, The Agenda: “By sheer persistence, the gay-friendly media have been forcing Americans to accept homosexuality as a normal and natural choice, whether they believe it or not. … The great aim of the homosexual lobby and its supporters … is to eradicate the moral framework of American society and to elevate and legislate promiscuous couplings of every imaginable type.”
[...]
“I imagine they would not have been so supportive of homosexuality if they had understood the whole range of ‘sexual orientations’ being normalized in our culture. They also might have been less supportive of homosexuality if they understood that the ultimate goal of homosexual activism is to destroy the concept of marriage altogether.
[More at URL]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-06-23 09:12 am (UTC)Every father in my neighborhood, every father of every kid in my highschool, fought in WWII. One of the most famous war photographers from the war, his son was in my class. One of my uncles was the military governor of one of the major german cities after the war (I forget which, I'd have to ask my Mom). I grew up surrounded by people from every aspect of the war, from combat vets to flyers, to support personnel, as well as holocaust survivors (My roomate in college, his Dad was the only one in his family to survive in Dacheau), the lady down the street from my house had been in a concentration camp. There were quite a few survivors in my neighborhood.
My college Girlfriend, her parents had been members of the polish underground, her dad actually -saw- Hitler with his own eyes when the germans first rolled in to Poland.
I've know guys who fought for the British, the Polish, and yes even former German soldiers. I've studied a lot of different aspects of the war, and have had the ability to ask people, who were actually THERE, about all sorts of things. I have seen the first pictures ever taken of a concentration camp by an allied photographer, because his son brought them to school.
And I have NEVER IN MY LIFE heard this shit about 'The Nazi's were Gay!!!'
Where do these people come up with this? Doesn't anyone think for a moment that if the NAZI's had been gay it wouldn't have been shouted from the rooftops? It would have been the propaganda scoop of the century! And I hope they aren't going to say 'well nobody knew' I mean come on, they knew that Hitler only had one testicle! If the leader of the enemy can't hide THAT how the hell are they going to hide rampant homosexuality?
Sheesh. (rant off)
no subject
Date: 2007-06-23 04:36 pm (UTC)I thought this was done, honestly. It appeared, I went "oh. my. fucking. god.," and then it faded. But clearly, it's still out there. I suppose it's useful for establishing the motivation at the grassroots for taking the fight against GBLT people multigenerational. I don't actually think it'll work, it's just too crazy. I think at this point the biggest question is how much damage will they be able to do on the way to losing. Unfortunately, the potential is for there to be quite a lot, and also, I could be full of wrong. As with everything, we'll have to see.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-23 04:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-06-23 07:40 pm (UTC)why is the spokesperson (and most of the leaders, iirc) for Concerned Women for America male?
no subject
Date: 2007-06-23 07:52 pm (UTC)One really neat thing was listening to Beverly LaHaye Live in the 90s. All the female guests would call her Dr. LaHaye - she has a doctorate in divinity - but all the male guests and staff would call her Mrs. LaHaye, and it took a while, but I eventually realised that there were two factors here: first, that men without doctorates couldn't be "inferiour" to her, so dropped her proper title, and second, that in their mindset, her own achievements (a doctorate in religion) wasn't as important as her marriage to a man, Timothy LaHaye. They didn't quite ever say that, of course; that's my own interpretation of what I heard. But there was a lot of talk about these philosophies (men must be in authority over women and not vice-versa; the most important thing for women was to be the wife of a man), so it wasn't a big reach.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-23 09:50 pm (UTC)Also, is this the same Tim LaHaye partly responsible for the Left Behind crap?
(umm, I doubt this is necessary, but should you have a deep abiding love for those books, oh, heck, I'm sorry, I can't apologize for calling them crap, hope it didn't offend you!)
no subject
Date: 2007-06-27 09:31 am (UTC)Yes
no subject
Date: 2007-06-27 03:30 pm (UTC)(And as
no subject
Date: 2007-06-27 04:56 pm (UTC)Will save the amused exclamation for news of something awful happening to him, should I live so long.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-24 12:31 am (UTC)First, Joe Dallas is theologically correct, except for the part, "If you are going to continue to practice sexual sin, and you are a believer, and you are legitimizing that sin;... I cannot be in fellowship with you. You are in essence living in rebellion against your Father." No, it takes more than that to be in rebellion against God. Trying to legitimize a sin is a standard aspect of being "in bondage to sin," and we all are in bondage to sin in some way. It would be a shame to kick everyone out of the church.
Second, he said, "When you're talking to non-believers, it's not a good idea to even argue homosexuality, the thing to do is to promote the gospel." I agree. I wish more Christians agreed.
Third, he mentioned some of the arguments of the pro-gay Christians. He debunked those arguments, but nevertheless, they are still effective rebuttals to Christians who never thought the matter through. For example, Jesus himself said nothing about homosexuality, for or against. The subject never came up. I wish it had, because Jesus's insights would be handy. The verses against homosexuality (only six in all) are either Old Testament law or portions of Saint Paul's letters where he criticizes several forms of sexual immorality. In other words, homosexuality is lumped together with all other sexual immorality. Why should American Christians be any more upset about homosexual sex than about premarital sex?
I find it encouraging that the fundamentalist side of the Christian church is complaining that the liberal side is too nice to gays. We liberal Christians are getting our message out.
By the way, in Wednesday's Cultural Warfare Update, Solarbird mentioned Drew Phoenix, the transsexual pastor of St John's in Baltimore City United Methodist Church. Many years ago my family belonged to a country dancing club that met in a United Methodist Church in that neighborhood, so I wondered whether I was familiar with St. John's. However, I checked and the dance club met at Lovely Lane United Methodist Church, four blocks away from St. John's. The United Methodist churches in Maryland are friendly about lending their buildings to other organizations.
Erin Schram
no subject
Date: 2007-06-24 12:56 am (UTC)Actually, I was pretty sure that one would get you interested. ^_^